Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DISENGAGEMENT

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent any form of disengagement in Europe is now included in Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing to add to what I said about disengagement in the foreign affairs debate last week.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Foreign Secretary explain what has caused the change of attitude since twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister was speaking, very sensibly, I thought, at least, about a zone of limited arms in Central Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: I explained that matter at some length, covering at least one column of HANSARD, during the debate. If I did not satisfy the hon. Member then, I doubt whether I shall satisfy him in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Warbey: Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that foreign troops shall remain permanently in Germany, both East and West, or have they any alternative?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add on the question of disengagement to what I said in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Icelandic Government that, during the period of the United Nations Conference on the

Law of the Seas, British trawlers should be permitted to fish up to the four-mile limit and British naval protection vessels be withdrawn.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have made repeated suggestions to the Icelandic Government for an interim arrangement on fishery matters pending the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. I repeated in Paris in December our offer as an interim measure to withdraw our naval protection vessels from within the twelve-mile fishery limit claimed by Iceland if the Icelandic authorities would undertake not to interfere with our fishing vessels between six and 12 miles.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to continue to urge the Icelandic Government to adopt a more reasonable attitude, particularly as we are now approaching the date of the conference, which could get off to a much better start if some such arrangement were made?

Mr. Lloyd: I regard the suggestion as a fair one, because it went two miles beyond the four-mile limit to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is a matter of deep regret that the Icelandic Government have not seen fit to accept it. I still hope that they may change their mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE REPORTS

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances certain authors have had access to Special Operations Executive Reports covered by the Official Secrets Acts; whether he is aware that they have used them in such a way as to injure the reputation of agents who have been tried and acquitted; and whether, in order to stop the publication of secret reports which cannot be checked and the consequent abuse of the Official Secrets Act, the authorised history of Special Operations Executive will be immediately commenced.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 6th June, 1956, by my right hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am not aware that


the information disclosed in the single instance to which he referred was used for the purpose which the hon. Lady suggests.
With regard to the second part of the Question, I do not accept the implication that the Official Secrets Act has been abused. As regards the publication of an authorised history of the Special Operations Executive, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State informed my hon. Friend on 11th December, 1958, the question is being examined. That is still the position.

Dame Irene Ward: Discounting the problem of unauthorised people being in possession of secret reports, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, if a libel action is brought against an author who has quoted from a secret report of which he should not be in possession and the case goes to court, the proper document will be available, supplied by the Foreign Office, for the complainant to clear his character?

Mr. Lloyd: I would like notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that enough harm has already been done by these amateur cloak and dagger people who have ignored the Official Secrets Act and cashed in on their limited wartime experience? Will my right hon. and learned Friend deny them any further encouragement by refusing absolutely to authorise an official history of what is supposed to be a secret organisation?

Mr. Lloyd: I am well aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's views about this matter, remembering his supplementary question of 15th December, 1958. I certainly will bear his views in mind.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Will not the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to comment on the wild allegations which have been made? A great number of the people connected with this work gave distinguished and gallant service during the war. Surely, he will not let that supplementary question pass without comment.

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that many people did very gallant work in this connection.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Would it be in order for me to ask the Foreign Secretary if he is aware that the Prime Minister has authorised publication of an official history?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMANDER CRABB

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has received regarding the whereabouts of Commander Crabb.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent information received by Her Majesty's Government about Commander Crabb.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No recent information about Commander Crabb has been received by Her Majesty's Government.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a little more assurance, having regard to some wild statements which have appeared in the Press and the disquiet which some of those observations have aroused? Has he not got any further statement to make on the subject, on whether we know definitely what happened, and whether there has been identification of the body?

Mr. Lloyd: I would remind my hon. Friend that at the inquest in June, 1957, the coroner expressed himself as quite satisfied that the remains which were found in Chichester Harbour on 9th June were those of Commander Crabb.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a possibility that the coroner was wrong on that occasion? Is he aware also that a book is being published shortly by publishers in London who state that they are satisfied with the authenticity of the information received from Russia? They are publishing this. Could the Foreign Secretary give us some information about the publication of this book?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about the book. I have no other information about Commander Crabb than that which I have given to the House. I have no reason to think that there is any truth in the suggestion that the coroner was wrong.

Mr. Fernyhough: Has not the time come when the Government should come clean with the House about this case, and ought not the House to know who was responsible for giving the instructions to undertake that rather shady escapade?

Mr. Lloyd: That is quite a different matter from the two Questions on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDO-CHINA (GENEVA AGREEMENT)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with other interested Governments of Great Britain's obligations in Laos under the Geneva Agreement of 1955.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman's question of 10th February.

Mr. Healey: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least assure the House that he has reached no undertaking with the United States Government for joint military intervention in Laos in conditions and in circumstances which have been defined?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman in a supplementary question last week referred to a certain newspaper article, which I have read. There is no secret Anglo-American agreement for military intervention in Laos, but, of course, we are both members of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, which is a defensive organisation with a military planning office. Such a planning office, obviously, considers plans for a wide variety of contingencies, but such plans are without commitment, and there is no commitment by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that our commitments in S.E.A.T.O. apply to circumstances which may arise in Laos, whose international status has been defined as neutral in an agreement to which the Government are a party?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as any military plans are concerned, I have no intention of being more specific. I think it would be quite unwise for me to be more specific. If a planning office is doing

its duty it is making plans for a wide variety of contingencies. So far as our obligations under the Treaty are concerned, we are under an obligation to resist aggression.

Mr. Healey: But surely the Treaty defines quite clearly the area in which it is relevant, and Laos is not included in its area of operation?

Mr. Lloyd: Laos is a designated area under the Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (NAZI VICTIMS)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what date he expects to be able to report to the House on his discussions with the Federal German Government on the agreements for compensating Nazi victims.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot yet add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 10th February.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that, while the Federal Government have given tardy and somewhat inadequate compensation to Jewish victims of Nazism, they have used a legal artifice to bar the claims of non-Jewish victims of Nazism? Will he not now say to Dr. Adenauer's representative that if the Federal Government really want to represent themselves as among the civilised nations they ought really to do something to treat alike claims on behalf of all people who were victims of Nazism?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I do agree with him that this is a matter which should be looked at from the ethical point of view rather than the legal point of view. It is a matter which I shall certainly continue to pursue.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN MIGRATION (INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will


join the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am afraid that I cannot yet add to what my hon. Friend told the right hon. Gentleman last month, namely, that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Committee has up to date sent overseas more than 400,000 refugees, would it not be very appropriate for the Government to join during World Refugee Year?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly a consideration not absent from my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (SITUATION)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on Cyprus.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There is as yet not much to add to what was said in the debate on 9th February. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies left Cyprus on 10th February after delaying his departure for a few hours at the request of Archbishop Makarios. Since then the Governor has continued conversations with the Cypriot leaders with a view to clarifying certain questions that arose on the various subjects under discussion. I believe that some progress has been made. We are waiting for the Governor to complete his report. Meanwhile the position of Her Majesty's Government remains as it was stated in last week's debate; we are working for a settlement within the terms of the Zurich and London Agreements.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the fact that it is now public, the accusation which Archbishop Makarios has made against the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, can the Secretary of State say precisely what the Under-Secretary of State did agree to?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know that the word "accusation" is quite the right word to use, but I have certainly read the reports. They are at variance with my understanding, and that of my hon. Friends and others, of what took place at this meeting, but really I do not think it is wise to go into that matter today.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Lloyd: It simply shows some of the difficulties of the negotiations.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the position of the Government remains as it was stated. Will he bear in mind that very many people in this country are anxious that that position should continue to remain as it was stated?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that point of view.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his hon. Friend's view is not shared by everybody in this House, and that there will be a widespread feeling that the precedent set by the Foreign Secretary himself in revealing an ex parte account of what happened in private negotiations is not a desirable one to be followed?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a point of view and I take note of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC AND ISRAEL

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) wheher, in conjunction with the other parties to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, he will make representations to the Government of the United Arab Republic, with a view to terminating the state of war between the United Arab Republic and Israel;
(2) to what extent belligerent rights are accorded by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic and Israel, in view of the fact that a state of war exists between these two States.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration regarding the effect of the formation of the United Arab Republic upon their obligations under the declaration.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: At discussions held since the formation of the United Arab Republic, the signatories agreed that the Tripartite Declaration remained a valid declaration of policy. The termination of the state of war between Israel and the Arab States was called for by the


Armistice Agreement of 1949. For Her Majesty's Government to call on the United Arab Republic to terminate that state of war would be to admit that it still exists, which we do not.
The question of according belligerent tights by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic or Israel has not arisen. If the point did arise, the Government concerned would have to establish, as a matter of law, that it was entitled to exercise such rights.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the position whereby this situation in the Middle East has been allowed over many years to drift is extremely dangerous, especially when it is accompanied by such belicose statements as we have seen in the paper by President Nasser today, and that the danger in the future will get worse and worse until some definite action is either taken by the United Nations or not?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Healey: Does this mean that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned his interpretation of the Tripartite Agreement of 6th March, 1957, namely, that the Government did not consider it applicable in the case of an attack on Israel by Egypt? Would he answer Question No. 23 in my name on the Paper? Does he consider and do his partners in the Declaration consider the Declaration as being applicable in the case of war between Israel and that part of the United Arab Republic which used to be Syria?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a wide question. Perhaps the Answer which I gave was an over-simplification, but as the United Arab Republic is a State in the area it must be taken into account—for example, in regard to the arms race and the operation of that part of the Tripartite Declaration which deals with the supply of arms in the area. But if the question is, do we regard ourselves as under an obligation to go to the help of a State which does not want our help, I would say, "No."

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman declines to admit that the U.A.R. and the State of Israel are is a state of war, why did his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for

Foreign Affairs, in reply to a Question relating to the interference with shipping through the Canal, reply by saying that it was related to a state of war and was a legal issue? What is the legal issue involved if the Government decline to admit that there is a state of war?

Mr. Lloyd: What I have said is the actual truth. We do not agree that there is a state of war now, but the Government of the United Arab Republic maintain that there is. As far as I understand the position of the Israeli Government, they say that there is not. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was referring to when he said that it was a legal issue.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the United Nations Resolution which stated that neither nation should exercise a right to search and seizure is still valid?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that specific case, but my recollection is that that is the well-known Resolution of 1951. In our view, that is a Resolution to which regard should be had. It does not lie in our hands to see that it is complied with.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Tripartite Declaration made by the three Governments, without agreement or consultation with any of the Governments in the countries of the area concerned, included a commitment that the three Governments, should they find any of the States preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would immediately take action within or outside the United Nations to prevent such violation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government recognise an obligation to take such action in the case of a violation of the armistice line between Israel and the United Arab Republic?

Mr. Lloyd: We do not regard ourselves as under an obligation to come to the help of a State which says that it does not want our help.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not that interpretation now given by the Foreign Secretary in plain violation of the text of the agreement which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has just read out, and also in violation of the view held by the United States?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about the latter matter, but I do not accept that it is in violation of the text. I have been saying this for three years.

Mr. J. Hynd: In view of the deliberate defiance by Her Majesty's Government of the Tripartite Agreement in 1956 and the denunciation of the main clause which the Foreign Secretary has now enunciated in the House, would it not be wise to scrap this altogether, so that all know where they stand?

Mr. Lloyd: That is, of course, a possibity, but the Declaration has some validity with regard to contributing to stability in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent proposals of the United States Government at the Geneva Conference on Tests, he will make a further statement on the conference.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the House last week, the United States Delegation as the Geneva Nuclear Tests Conference put forward on 11th February a new proposal for the suspension of tests on the surface of the earth, in the oceans, and up to the greatest height at which effective controls could be agreed. The United States proposal would also ban those underground tests at present capable of being detected and identified, and proposes joint research to extend this ban. The United Kingdom Delegation have given general support to this proposal. Yesterday the Soviet Delegate rejected the United States proposal, but he put forward on behalf of the Soviet Union new proposals on criteria for initiating inspections of suspected underground tests. These are very technical and will require careful study.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the main outstanding difference is the problem of the uncontrollable lower-range underground tests and that there is broad agreement on the need to ban all other tests? If this is so, why should not Her Majesty's Government propose that there should be a ban on all tests other than small underground tests, that there should be a declaration by the three Governments not to resume any small underground tests, and that there

should be the appointment of scientists by the three Governments to investigate the possibility of achieving an effective control system for dealing with small underground tests?

Mr. Lloyd: As to the first part of the supplementary question, that already is our position. The United States Government and we have stated that we are willing to make such an agreement forthwith. What we are now trying to do is, by negotiating with the Soviet Union, to find out whether an acceptable control system can be set up to deal with the remaining range of underground tests which, on present information, are difficult or impossible to control. We must continue to examine very carefully the Soviet proposals which, I think, are designed for the same purpose, because it is much better, if we can, to get a comprehensive agreement straight away.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Foreign Secretary say down to what level of explosive power in kilotons the American proposal would forbid tests?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The magnitude was put in another measurement. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice, I can give the actual measurements which the United States have given.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now given further consideration to the possibility of monitoring suspected underground nuclear tests with a small number of unmanned seismic instruments; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the addition of small, unmanned, auxiliary seismic stations along the periphery of known seismic areas to the control system, already substantially agreed upon as capable of detecting all major nuclear explosions, would make it also 98 per cent. efficient in distinguishing minor underground explosions down to one kiloton from earthquakes, whether he will urge the adoption of this method of control at Geneva in preference to a resumption of nuclear tests.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have been studying this idea for some time and it is still being examined by our experts. The results


of this work when complete will have to be carefully considered before we can decide whether to propose the incorporation of such stations in an inspection system. It is still too early to say whether we can satisfactorily solve the practical difficulties of designing such stations, ensuring communications from them to control posts, and guaranteeing them against tampering.

Mr. Warbey: May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving a rather more forthcoming reply today than he gave last week on this point, and for recognising the value of the Berkner Commission's Report in making a contribution to a solution of this question? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the importance of ensuring that we achieve an agreement covering all forms of tests and that it is hopeless and impossible to get one if one country is allowed to continue any form of tests, even underground?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. The difficulty about this proposed new mechanism is that nobody has yet designed it. It is not at all certain whether one could have communication from it to the control post, or that one could prevent its being tampered with by some unauthorised person. Although I think there is a useful germ of an idea in this business of unmanned posts, we would have to go a little further on the practical issue before we could support it.

Mr. Zilliacus: While appreciating the difficulties which the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, may I ask whether he is aware that this Berkner Commission's recommendation was recently put forward at an East-West unofficial conference here by an American Congressman and a nuclear physicist and was strongly supported by two members of the Supreme Soviet Foreign Affairs Commission? In view of the consequent likelihood that a proposal on these lines would be accepted and of the dangers of a resumption of tests as compared with an imperfect control system, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman press for very serious consideration of this proposal?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said that our experts are examining this very seriously, because there may be some value in some unmanned apparatus of this sort.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a report by British scientists on the Berkner Report proposal?

Mr. Lloyd: These are British scientists who are now examining it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Austrian Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the Communiqué issued on 9th February, the text of which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and to what I said in the debate last week about Dr. Kreisky's visit.

Mr. Warbey: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the subject of South Tyrol was discussed and whether he was able to assure the Austrian Foreign Secretary that he supports the view that the Italian Government are under treaty obligation to provide genuine autonomy to South Tyrol?

Mr. Lloyd: Dr. Kreisky did explain the point of view of the Austrian Government on this question. Our view is that it is a matter much better settled by bilateral discussion between the Austrian and Italian Governments.

Following is the Communiqué:
In the course of their visit to London the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Bruno Kreisky, and Professor Gschnitzer, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have had a number of meetings with the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Heathcoat Amory; and the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Maudling. They had intimate discussions on the major international problems of the day, with special reference to East-West relations and disarmament. They also examined questions of particular interest to their Governments.
Special consideration was paid to the political and economic problems of Europe. The Ministers reaffirmed their determination, as expressed in the Convention setting up the E.F.T.A., to work for the early establishment of a multilateral association and removal of trade harriers between all the members of the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation.
Ministers also reviewed Anglo-Austrian relations. They welcomed the notable progress made towards the final settlement of claims


arising out of the Vienna Memorandum of 1955. The Ministers agreed to increase co-operation between Austria and the United Kingdom in all fields and to bring relations between the two countries into line with their new association in E.F.T.A. They decided to set up a Continuing Committee under the Chairmanship of the two Foreign Ministers to initiate and co-ordinate measures for this purpose. The Committee will meet alternatively in London and Vienna.
Dr. Kreisky, in the name of the Austrian Government, has invited Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to visit Austria towards the middle of the year. Mr. Lloyd has accepted the invitation with pleasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (NUCLEAR REACTORS)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now propose to the Government of Spain, following the recent Agreement, that the design of any nuclear reactors to be built in Spain by British firms shall be submitted for approval to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that this Agency shall be invited to control the operation of the reactors to ensure that no fissile material is produced for military use.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Our Agreement with Spain provides for the contracting parties to consult in order to determine in what respects and to what extent controls and safeguards should be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Agency has not yet worked out its detailed arrangements for safeguarding the use of fissile material.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the dangers, as I think them, of supplying the Franco Government with fissile material, would it not be desirable to ask the Agency to undertake this task at the earliest moment, and if not, why was the Agency set up?

Mr. Lloyd: According to my information, no British firm is at present building nuclear reactors in Spain, and, so far as I am aware, no agreement for erecting them is being negotiated. I think it is rather a hypothetical question.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the most up-to-date and most efficient reactors are bound automatically and incidentally to produce plutonium and fissile material? Is there not a great

danger that, unless we get some world control of these nuclear fissile materials, little countries might be used by bigger countries as a means of producing these materials, thus enabling them to defy the agreement which we hope will be reached?

Mr. Lloyd: Without precisely identifying myself with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I am, broadly speaking, in agreement with him. The question is how to work out the necessary safeguards. The body known as I.A.E.A. has not yet worked out these safeguards, but it is engaged in that task. There is another body, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, which is also working out safeguards. I very much hope that these further safeguards will be worked out.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSULATE, NICE

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now consider the reopening of a British Consulate in Nice.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am considering this question.

Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that nearly three years ago he told me that he wanted to try out covering the area from Marseilles? Does he not think it is now time that the British Consulate was brought back to Nice?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point of view about this matter, and it will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (NUCLEAR TESTS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent French atomic explosion in the Sahara Desert, he will propose that the French Government be invited to participate in the Geneva Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is a matter which has to be considered in the light of previous statements of policy by the French Government and also of the fact that the negotiations have been going on for fifteen months on a tripartite basis.
My own present feeling is that it is better to try to complete our work on a tripartite basis in the hope that other countries will accede afterwards.

Mr. Henderson: As, according to reports, the French Government intend to carry out more nuclear explosions, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that the French Government will at least adhere to any agreement that may be reached at the Geneva Conference?

Mr. Lloyd: I have stated our position with regard to that matter. I do not think that to introduce a fourth negotiator at this stage of the conference would tend to speed up its conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government concerning a Channel tunnel; and when he expects to receive the report of the Channel Tunnel Study Group.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I believe that the International Study Group intend to send Her Majesty's Government a copy of their report in the near future. No worth-while discussions can take place with the French Government until this report has been studied.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that he will not encourage the proposal in view of the urgent needs of the British people for capital expenditure for housing and so on, which should come before a proposal of this kind?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that before a decision is taken in favour of the project all the relevant considerations should be taken into account, and I think that one of them is the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Factories (Safety Officers)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to make it compulsory for employers who have factories employing more than 100 men or women to appoint safety officers whose sole work would be the prevention of accidents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir. The need for a safety officer in a factory is not determined primarily by the numbers employed. When regulations under the Factories Acts dealing with particular processes and industries are made, this question is considered and some regulations provide for such appointments in certain circumstances.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we are satisfied that the present inspectorate is doing the work very satisfactorily, we are not satisfied that there are sufficient inspectors? Is he also aware that when an inspector makes a recommendation for an alteration in machinery for protective purposes, no period is laid down for it to be carried into operation? Will he either lay down a period or ensure that alterations are carried out when inspectors make recommendations?

Mr. Thomas: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says, but I suggest that that is another question.

Factory Doctors (Fees)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to ensure that the fees due to appointed factory doctors for carrying out the periodic medical examination of juveniles required by the Factory Acts of 1937 and 1948 may, in future, he a charge on public funds.

Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir. The Factories Acts provide for these fees to be paid by the employer of the young persons and my right hon. Friend would not consider it appropriate to amend the law to make the fees a charge on public funds.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does not my hon. Friend feel that, while fully recognising the desirability of these examinations and the necessity for safeguarding the health of young people in industry, the very considerable contribution to National Insurance paid by the employers should be sufficient to cover these extra charges, and would not such a practice be an actual encouragement to all firms to ensure that these examinations are regularly carried out?

Mr. Thomas: I take my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but the use of the


National Health Service is a slightly different matter, because it is a personal medical service. The examination under the Factories Acts is part of the general responsibility of the employer for the safety, health and welfare of the people employed by him, and I see no good reason why that responsibility should be a charge on public funds.

National Dock Labour Board (Disciplinary Cases)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure that, upon the request of an hon. Member, sufficient particulars will be furnished to him by the National Dock Labour Board to enable him to satisfy himself, with reference to any particular case, that like penalties are imposed for like offences by a local board or confirmed by an appeals tribunal under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): Under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947, the National Dock Labour Board is responsible for the administration of the Scheme and I have retained no control over day-to-day business. I could not, therefore, comply with such a request.

Mr. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman go the distance of acknowledging that the best way to dispel suspicion in this kind of matter is to reveal the relevant information, that it is desirable to get away from the atmosphere of the secret court, and that hon. Members can give assistance in this regard?

Mr. Heath: There is machinery laid down for dealing with disciplinary cases in which there are appeals tribunals with independent members, and, if necessary, a case can then he taken on, I understand, by various processes to the High Court. I think that such disciplinary processes should be able to deal with these matters.

Mr. Irvine: Will not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that and recognise the public advantage which exists in the fact that proceedings in the ordinary courts of law are widely publicized, and would he not say that the same principle should apply to tribunals of this kind?

Mr. Heath: I am certainly willing to examine that point.

Factory Inspectorate (Railways)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement, giving details of the number and type of premises, as defined in Section 25 of the Factories Act, 1959, which were visited by the Factory Inspectorate within the railway industry.

Mr. P. Thomas: No such visits have been made as the Section is not yet in operation. My officials are consulting the Ministry of Transport and the British Transport Commission about certain problems which will arise when the Section is brought into operation. My right hon. Friend's aim is to bring it into operation at the earliest practicable date.

Mr. Spriggs: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give a specific date when these regulations will become operative?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Many discussions have to take place, and I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but I can assure him that there will not be undue delay.

North-East Region

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Labour, as a result of his visit to Tyneside and his talks with employers, trade union officials and other interested parties, what conclusions he has formed regarding the need for additional industries in the north-east; and what steps he is taking to provide work for those now without jobs.

Mr. Heath: I recognize the need for additional employment, especially for men and boys, and I am impressed by the opportunities offered for new industries in the north-east. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who hopes to visit Tyneside on 29th February, entirely shares this view and he will continue his efforts to attract fresh industries to the area.

Mr. Fernyhough: While we are very pleased in the north-east at the interest being taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministerial colleagues, we are not at the moment very enamoured of the progress which is being made. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the President of the Board of Trade that he is repeatedly saying that he is doing his


best but while he is doing his best, unemployment in Jarrow and Hebburn is growing worse? In my constituency we have almost 2,000 unemployed, or a rate of about 8 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any real hope of jobs for these people in the reasonably near future?

Mr. Heath: The whole of the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is on the list of development areas—

Mr. Robens: No.

Mr. Heath: —issued by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend and I have both been doing our utmost to persuade new industry to go there.

Mr. Robens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there are some isolated cases on Tyneside on the list, there are other places in south Northumberland and Durham which are vitally affected by the diminution in coal mining and that these are areas which require very special attention? Will he and the President of the Board of Trade apply their minds to the position now obtaining with the tremendous reduction in the number of miners employed in south Northumberland and Durham?

Mr. Heath: We are in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in order to have information about this developing situation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade is taking all these considerations into account in looking to the future.

Plymouth

Miss Vickers: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the percentage of unemployed in each of the last five years in the city of Plymouth.

Mr. Heath: Because of the volume of daily travel to work it is not possible to compute a percentage rate of unemployment for Plymouth alone. For the wider area, including Saltash and Torpoint, the percentage rates were 2·2 in December, 1955, 2·5 in December, 1956, 3·2 in December, 1957, 4·1 in December, 1958 and 3·7 in December, 1959.

Miss Vickers: In view of the fact that we have over 3,000 unemployed in the area at the present time and that the

area is not included in the new Local Employment Bill, does this not give rise for anxiety in that area?

Mr. Heath: Naturally one has anxiety where there is unemployment of that kind.

National Service (Call-up)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he will instruct his officers in their consideration of applications for postponement of National Service to give special consideration to cases of fathers with more than one dependent child, in view of the hardship involved for the mother.

Mr. Heath: Special consideration is already given to applications for postponement of call-up made by men with one or more children. I recognise that if there is more than one child the mother's difficulties may often be greater, but the full circumstances of each case are carefully considered.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, does he not think that there can be exceptionally few such cases where real hardship does not arise?

Mr. Heath: I remain of the view that each case must be treated on its merits. If a great number of these cases are suffering hardship, then they will receive sympathetic consideration from the tribunals.

Mr. Prentice: Is not the reference to special consideration rather ambiguous? Is not that the kind of instruction liable to different interpretations by different officers in different parts of the country? As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has just pointed out, in every one of these cases there must be a real element of hardship and, in view of the general manpower position, surely all these cases can now be excluded.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is going further in saying that there must be an element of hardship. I cannot accept that. They must be considered on their merits. I think uniformity is obtained over the country. The figures show that the proportion of cases which received postponement has risen from 57 per cent. in 1955 to 75 per cent. in 1959.


This shows that sympathetic attention is being given and many more cases are being postponed.

Mr. Prentice: In dealing with young married couples with more than one child, facing possible separation for two years, surely there is real hardship in virtually all these cases? Is it not playing with words to say that each case must be considered on its merits?

Mr. Heath: I am not prepared to give automatic exemption to these cases.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend and Tynemouth

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an occupational analysis of the present unemployment in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. Heath: As the Reply includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Short: Is it not a fact that these figures reveal rather heavy unemployment in certain trades and that this is lost sight of when merged into the

OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ADULT WORKERS REGISTERED AS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AT 7TH DECEMBER, 1959


Occupation
Men
Women
Total


House and ship painters, paperhangers
…
…
…
76
—
76


Miscellaneous building and civil engineering workers
…
46
—
46


Electricians, etc.
…
…
…
…
…
…
23
1
24


Stationary engine, etc. driver, stoker, etc.
…
…
…
44
1
45


Miscellaneous workers in engineering and allied trades
…
34
4
38


Toolmakers, precision fitters
…
…
…
…
…
37
—
37


Kitchen workers (other than in private domestic service)
…
14
53
67


Motor or electric lorry, tractor, van or truck drivers
…
214
2
216


Warehousemen
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
46
5
51


Porters and messengers
…
…
…
…
…
49
—
49


Packers, stowers, boxers, wrappers, etc.
…
…
…
6
94
100


Shop assistants in food and drink establishments
…
…
15
39
54


Clerks (general and routine)
…
…
…
…
…
158
83
241


Labourers in building and civil engineering
…
…
…
224
—
224


Labourers in engineering and allied trades
…
…
…
78
—
78


Charwomen and cleaners (non-resident)
…
…
…
1
128
129


General labourers, heavy
…
…
…
…
…
1,046
—
1,046


General labourers, light
…
…
…
…
…
737
—
737


Factory workers, factory hands, etc.
…
…
…
…
7
139
146


All other occupations
…
…
…
…
…
…
966
438
1,404


TOTAL
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,821
987
4,808

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour what is the present percentage of unemployment in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend, and Tynemouth, respectively.

general unemployment percentage? Is it not most unfair that the list should be drawn up on the basis of a general overall figure of unemployment in an area?

Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade takes into consideration a very large number of factors. If the hon. Member will look at this very detailed list, he will be able to see the situation clearly.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that north-east Northumberland, with the exception of one small place in the centre, has been completely eliminated from the areas which are covered by the new Bill? Is he aware that we in the North-East are thoroughly dissatisfied with what appears to be a somewhat amateurish Bill which divides the Tyne in two?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put those points to the President of the Board of Trade when he visits the North-East.

Following is the reply:

Mr. Heath: Percentage rates of unemployment are not computed for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend or Tynemouth, but on 11th January, 1960, the rate of unemployment for the combined


area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Elswick, Walker, West Moor and Newburn was 3·1 per cent. and for the combined area of North Shields, Wallsend and Whitley Bay, 3·8 per cent.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to those figures there is tremendous fear of redundancy in the area? There is widespread short-time working and this, in addition to the contraction of the coal industry and of the shipbuilding and repairing industry, really makes it quite shocking that none of this area has been included in the list.

Mr. Heath: I recognise that there are these factors. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to take into account a number of other factors as well.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these areas were omitted from the list because the unemployment percentage was less than four?

Mr. Health: No, I was not saying that specifically.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed persons in Sunderland on the latest available date.

Mr. Heath: 6,075 at 11th January, 1960. I will write to the hon. Member when the February figure is available at the end of the month.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this shows an unemployment percentage of more than 7 per cent. and that it looks like being persistent? Is he also aware that the whole of southeast Durham urgently needs new industries? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see that urgent steps are taken to provide new industrial development in the area?

Mr. Heath: I have vividly appreciated this problem since my visit to the North-East. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this area is one of the development districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Ratings (Pay Allotments)

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what limitations are imposed upon the number of allotments from pay that can be made by naval ratings.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): At present, there are no limitations on the number except that only one may be made to a trader by a rating below leading rate and under 20 years of age. We are, however, introducing by stages over the next 12 months a limit for all ratings; monthly allotments will be limited to three, and one weekly allotment will be allowed for the maintenance of a wife or dependant. If three monthly allotments are made, at least one must be either to a savings bank or for National Savings, a recognised benevolent fund, an insurance company, a building society, or to fulfil a court order. This action is being taken to save administrative effort both ashore and afloat.

Mr. Willis: Since it appears that the numbers will be limited to four, could the hon. Gentleman say how many men will be aected by this? Will he not look at this again in order to give sufficient flexibility to permit desirable types of allotment being made?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: At present, 181,000 allotments are made by 83,000 officers and ratings. Only 1,882 of these are making more than four allotments, and all this totals under 10,000 allotments. I will bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member in the second part of his question.

Work Studies

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many work studies have been carried out at his Department's office; and what were the resulting savings in manpower and money.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Work study in a headquarters office takes the form of organisation and method study. The Admiralty have for nearly 20 years now had an O. and M. Branch, which has


done a great deal in increasing efficiency. It is not possible to calculate the saving in manpower and money.

Mr. Willis: Do we understand from that answer that there is to be no reduction in this very swollen staff at the Admiralty?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are by no means complacent about this. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that there is a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates at present investigating Vote 12, the Admiralty Office.

Nuclear-Propelled Submarine

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement about the laying down of a sister-ship of H.M.S. "Dreadnought".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement published today, which mentions that we plan to order a second nuclear propelled submarine.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted that the Admiralty has decided to order a nuclear-propelled submarine, but that what is really needed is a nuclear-propelled submarine capable of discharging nuclear missiles? Will he give urgent consideration to the design of such a vessel?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I take this opportunity of making it clear that "Dreadnought" and her successor sister ship are not designed for nor capable of taking Polaris type missiles. The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, therefore, another matter.

Mr. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the development of marine nuclear propulsion may well be the major hope of British shipbuilding to regain its lead in the world? Will he push ahead as fast as possible and bear in mind the developments in German yards and that, if we do not do something quickly, we shall be left behind and without a contract? Will he bear in mind the nuclear developments on Tyneside and the remarks at Question Time today on the needs of Tyneside?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will know that that responsibility has

been transferred from the Admiralty to the Ministry of Transport, to whose attention I will draw the points made.

Fishing Vessels (Iceland Patrols)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what has been the additional cost of giving extra protection to fishing vessels in Icelandic waters since 1st September, 1958, because of Iceland's introduction of a 12-mile fishing limit.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) on 15th February.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while no one grudges £500,000 extra for giving protection to British fishing vessels in northern waters, we in Cornwall feel that the Minister of Transport is pursuing a very mean economy in refusing to continue a constant watch especially for protection for Cornish fishing vessels, especially when it is remembered that we have 300 miles of coastline?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have reorganised and strengthened our fishing protection squadron since the Iceland patrol was started. I see from the figures that in 1957, before the Iceland patrols began, we made infrequent appearances off the Cornish coast and caught only one poacher. In 1959, we made 92 appearances, six poachers were caught and four successfully prosecuted.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Military Medal (Financial Benefits)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for War why it was decided, in introducing the financial benefits attached to the award of the Military Medal, to limit them to decorations earned on or after 3rd September. 1939.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I understand that the reasons for the decision taken in 1945 were financial and practical ones. There were about 116,000 Military Medals awarded in the First World War compared with 17,000 in the second. Apart from the cost involved in including the earlier awards, there would have been


difficulty in checking entitlement, particularly if the next-of-kin of those who had died were made eligible.
The decision applied not only to the Military Medal but to a number of decorations the financial benefits of which were revised towards the end of the war. Details are set out in the OFFICIAI. REPORT for 27th February, 1945.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: In that case, will my hon. Friend consider restricting the monetary award to the earlier holders of the Military Medal who are still alive? Does he not agree that to do so would mean an enormous reduction in administrative work end in cost?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, but there are two problems. Quite apart from administration, the cost would still be very great. Secondly, payment to the next of kin of those who have died was permitted in the regulations in 1945 and would it not be fair to pay it in some cases and not in others.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that surviving holders of the Military Medal from the First World War feel a sense of injustice about this matter? While it might not be possible to go the whole length of giving the award to the next of kin and so on, could not the hon. Gentleman perform a simple act of justice if he gave the award to surviving holders?

Mr. Fraser: No, it would not be just, in so far as some next of kin would receive it and some would not. We must abide by the decision of all Governments since the war, the Labour Government and this.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Coloured Telephones (Charges)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider reducing the charges for the new type coloured telephone.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Yes, Sir. I am reducing the charge of £5 to £3 for all new type coloured telephones fitted as from today. I am also reducing the £3 charge for the replacement of the old type coloured instrument to £2.

Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for a reduction which will be welcomed by all colour-conscious telephone users. Will he consider reducing the charge still further as supplies of the new phones become more readily available?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed. As supplies come more freely to the Department, we shall certainly consider further reductions.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Facilities, Ferryhill Station

Mr. Slater: asked the Postmaster-General (1) in view of the postal distribution over a wide area from the Ferryhill Station centre, if he will give further consideration to the need for a Crown Post Office in this area;
(2) what is the radius covered by the Ferryhill Station centre for postal distribution; how such area compares with 10 years ago; and what percentage increase there has been in delivery during this period.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The radial distances from the Ferryhill office to its area boundaries vary from 2½ to 5½ miles, and the area served from the office is slightly smaller than 10 years ago; the number of letters delivered has increased by 26 per cent. and the number of parcels by 54 per cent. The existing arrangements appear to be satisfactory and I would not be justified in making any change at present.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Lady aware that ever since I can remember we have had a general post office at Ferryhill Station, with a postmaster in attendance, but that for the last three years that policy has been changed and the postmaster has been taken away—probably on representations from Darlington or Leeds to the Postmaster-General—and that with the increase of staff and the amount of work which is now involved, the time has come when we should have a different type of post office facilities in the area which at the moment are little more than a sub-post office?

Miss Pike: At present, we would not be justified in altering the status of the


post office at Ferryhill, but we have promised to review the position yearly and that will be done.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend have just answered three Questions on the day-to-day administration of a nationalised industry. Can they say from their experience and that of their officials whether such Questions are helpful or a hindrance to the efficiency of the Post Office, and will they bring their conclusions to the notice of their right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Speaker: That is a long way from Ferryhill Station.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Houses (Rents)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air in how many cases of houses owned by his department the rents have been increased since the passage of the Rent Act, 1957; to what extent the increases in rent have been related to the tenants' ability to pay; and what has been the average amount by which rents have been raised.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The rents of some 2,300 civilian occupied houses have been increased by an average of 5s. 10d. a week. The increases are not related to the tenants' income.

Mr. Swingler: Why should the Government use the excuse of the Rent Act, passed to benefit private landlords, to increase rents of their own houses? Is it not a fact that these houses were not affected by the Rent Act but are tied houses whose tenants have no legal rights whatever? Will not the hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is constantly telling us that rent increases should be related to the tenant's ability to pay?

Mr. Taylor: It has been decided in principle that the tenants of Government-owned houses should pay a fair rent, as they would if the properties were privately owned. I could not justify introducing a differential rent scheme, which would mean giving a hidden subsidy to Government tenants. It seems right that civil servants in Government-owned

houses should pay what would be a fair rent as between a private landlord and a private tenant.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Transport when a decision is to be taken to proceed with the building of a nuclear-power unit for marine propulsion, suitable for merchant ships.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I have nothing to add to the Answers my right hon. Friend gave to hon. Members on 27th January and 3rd February.

Mr. Bence: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is as important to spend public money on keeping the British Mercantile Marine abreast of world development as it is with the air services? In view of the situation on the Clyde for the next 12 months, is not the time ripe to develop a nuclear-powered marine ship, either a tanker or a mixed cargo vessel?

Mr. Hay: That goes a little wider than the Question. All I can say in answer to the Question put down is that I have nothing to say today.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Station Posters

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give the British Transport Commission a general direction to refrain from banning the display of posters on stations because they are considered politically controversial.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider that? Is he not aware of the British Transport Commission's refusal, for some extraordinary reason, to display posters advertising certain films about affairs in Germany on the grounds that those films might be unfair to Dr. Adenauer and so politically controversial, although the Commission is prepared to advertise all sorts of other things which are extremely controversial? Will he not consider the application of that principle and the removal of that political ban?

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman asks my right hon. Friend to give the Commission a general direction on a matter which is clearly one of day-to-day management. I am afraid that I cannot say other than "No, Sir", in answer to this Question

Mr. Swingler: It is a matter of principle.

BALLISTIC MISSILE EARLY WARNING STATION

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about a ballistic missile early warning station.
Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have reached agreement about setting up and operating a ballistic missile early warning station in the United Kingdom. This agreement is in support of the North Atlantic Treaty. The text of the Agreement is available as a White Paper in the Vote Office.
The station will be sited on Government-owned land at Fylingdales Moor, in Yorkshire. It will give early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the United Kingdom. The station will also be the third in a chain giving early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the North American Continent. Thus, the two countries have a community of interest in its erection and operation. In providing additional protection for Western strategic deterrent forces, the station will contribute substantially to the security of the entire N.A.T.O. area.
The station will be commanded and operated by the Royal Air Force. The information it obtains will be available simultaneously to operations centres in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, will receive the warning generated by the system; and the United Kingdom will also have access to information provided by the other stations in the chain.
The United States will provide and install the radars for the station, and pay for the communications required to link the station to the rest of the system.
The United Kingdom will provide the land, erect the buildings, and provide

communications required to link the station with our own authorities.
For the first five years of operation, the cost of spares for the radars and other technical equipment will be borne by the United States Government, and the cost of the maintenance of this equipment on the site will be borne by the United Kingdom. The responsibility for these costs after the end of this period will be a matter for later review. The other running costs of the station will be borne by the United Kingdom Government.
The capital cost of the station to this country is expected to be about £8 million. The capital cost to the United States is expected to be about £35 million.
The Government greatly regret that the station has to be in part of a National Park. But the topographical, geographical, and the operational criteria governing the choice of site are extremely stringent, and after detailed examination, the Government are satisfied that there is no other suitable site in the whole country. The Fylingdales site comprises about four square miles of land, owned mainly by the War Office and partly by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Forestry Commission, and is within a larger area which has been used by the War Office for military training.
As the site is in a National Park, the Government undertake to demolish the buildings if at any time in the future the station is no longer required. The Air Ministry will discuss with the local authorities, and with the National Parks Commission and other amenity bodies, the detailed siting arrangements and measures to be taken to minimise the effect on the landscape.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that a reference to this matter is contained in the Defence White Paper which, presumably, will be debated within the course of the next week or two? Do I understand that this statement was necessary this afternoon? If, in the opinion of the Government, it was necessary, are we to be allowed to debate this matter right away, or must we defer consideration of it until the Defence White Paper is presented to the House for debate?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had an opportunity of studying the reference to this matter in the White Paper. I do not think that I am doing anything unusual in allowing a Minister to make a statement if he asks leave to do so. For the rest, my emotions are always committed to the hope that the House will not think that a statement is the right occasion for an unorthodox debate. On the other hand, it would seem in order to allow some questions to be asked about it.

Mr. de Freitas: It is difficult to assess the full implications of this statement without hearing more about it, and we shall probe a great deal deeper during the Air Estimates debate, especially as to cost.
At first sight, is it not uncanny that, once again, a National Park is the only possible site in the whole country? Other technical questions arise. For example, which way will the station look? Will it look one way, like the Singapore defences, or will it look westwards against any possible Atlantic submarine attack? Secondly, will it replace any of our existing stations and thus save money? Thirdly, will it require skilled Royal Air Force manpower to operate it, or is it highly automative? Lastly, is there any radiation danger?

Mr. Ward: May I deal with the last two questions first? The uniformed manpower will amount to about 50 officers and men, some of whom will be United States Air Force personnel, and some Royal Air Force personnel.
There will be some thermal radiation. There is no question of any nuclear radiation. There will be a safety area immediately in front of the radar heads. This accounts in large measure for the four square miles that we need for the station.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the last thing in the world that I wanted to do was to put the station in a National Park, but we searched the whole country, and, as I said, the operational and other criteria were so stringent that this was the only place where we could put it.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the Minister accept the estimate that has been given elsewhere, that the maximum warning that this station will give this country is four minutes? If so, does he think

that that will allow us to do more than say "Cheerio chaps" to the other fellows who are listening to us? If, as I understand from the same estimates, it gives 15 minutes warning to the United States, which is significant, does the Minister think that it is proper that we should provide the facilities and also pay one-fifth of the cost of what is really a United States early warning station?

Mr. Ward: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman brought that up because we do not accept four minutes as the maximum figure. We hope to get a good deal more warning than that, in any case. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] We hope to get enough time to get a substantial part of the bomber force into the air.

Mr. Bellenger: Is this to be an isolated station, or, if it is successful in its purpose, is the system to be extended to other areas of the British Isles?

Mr. Ward: I said that this was the third station in a chain of three, the other two being in Alaska and Greenland. This chain will cover most of the North Atlantic Treaty area.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister said in his statement that the chain has been developed to give early warning to the North American Continent. Do we understand from that that the rest of the nations in the Western Alliance are not protected by this chain? Can we be assured that they will be taken into account and will get simultaneous warning with America from the other stations?
Can the Minister say a little more about the radiation danger? Does it mean that people who work or live in that area will be moved? If so, what arrangements are being made?

Mr. Ward: I said that the information from all three stations would be available not only to ourselves, but also to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, nobody lives there.

Mr. Proudfoot: Can my right hon. Friend say what degree of civil employment this will bring in the area?

Mr. Ward: While the site is being built there will be employment for quite a large number of people. The number


employed on building will be about 2,000 people, some of whom will be unskilled. Once the site is built employment should be available for 200 to 300 people.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that international tension has increased recently, and that we apprehend an early attack, which makes this speculative proposition desirable? In view of the fact that, as a result of the French decision, we now have a large number of American bombers situated in this country, apart from air stations which are dominated by the United States, and that we now propose to hand over a large piece of land which might be used for other and more desirable purposes, can the Minister say whether we are to become a colony of the United States?

Mr. Ward: This is a joint project which will benefit both the United States and ourselves—and, indeed, the whole of the Western deterrent.

Sir A. Spearman: Can my right hon. Fiend give a complete assurance that there will be no thermal radiation danger in the area outside the four square miles?

Mr. Ward: There will be no thermal radiation danger at all outside the area of the station.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not have been better to site this warning station somewhere in France or Western Germany, where we are supposed to have allies?

Mr. Ward: It would not, because this is a joint project between the Americans and ourselves, sited subject to extremely stringent operational criteria which have dictated the choice of this position.

Mr. Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), whether the station will be fully automative? Will it be electronically or manually operated? Is the Minister aware that some of us have seen the North American air defence system and believe that if this one is no more effective than that it will be a sheer waste of money?

Mr. Ward: The technicians who will be on the site will be there mainly for the maintenance of the equipment.

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES ACT, 1843 (AMENDMENT)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843.
When I first projected this Measure I had in mind primarily the London Library and its immediate problems. It is a very great national institution, with a remarkable history of service to learning. I am a member of the Library and I suppose that I therefore have a trifling financial interest in this matter.
The London Library was founded in about 1843, by Thomas Carlyle, after his famous British Museum Reading Room. It has been associated with the names of all who are great in our literature since then. It is a non-profit-making institution, primarily devoted to learning, and not so much to light fiction. It is an institution the membership of which we all value. I value my membership of it as much as others value their membership of the M.C.C. It represents all classes of society, from log cabin to White House or—translated into more modern English—from me to the Prime Minister.
Like the Windmill Theatre, it never closed, although it was never quite so wide open as the Windmill. When it was bombed its staff was guarding piles of books under tarpaulin jackets in the streets. Recently, as a result of an unexpected judicial determination, it has been saddled with an additional burden of £5,000 a year, in addition to the many burdens which libraries are having to bear at the moment.
If I may regard this as a natural break in my programme, I would say that the Library has had some benevolent help, but that it will need some more in future, whatever happens today or later, and I hope that more people will hear of this great institution and extend their benevolence to it. It was at this point that I came into contact with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who was interested in a similar problem in connection with the Royal College of Music. I have no special knowledge of that, except the very great knowledge that I gained from the hon. Member, and the very great help I had


from him through his knowledge of the complicated law of this difficult situation.
We approached the Minister, who had answered some questions about the matter, and we exchanged some letters. At very short notice, and with very great courtesy, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his talented Parliamentary Secretary agreed to receive an all-party deputation on the subject. Here I would mention that the deputation consisted of twice as many hon. Members opposite as hon. Members on this side of the House.
The Minister put a number of points of substance. First, he said that whilst this Measure would undoubtedly help the two institutions it would, in the terms that I proposed and which I put to him, provide a new problem. It would widen the area of controversy and it might be held to affect many more institutions. It might invite more litigation and, therefore, cause more delay in the solution of the general problem. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South confirmed that view.
The Minister then pointed out, quite properly, that he had already told the House that he was considering the whole complex range of matters covered by the Pritchard Committee's Report, and a very complex series of problems involving varied classes of rating problems, and that he wanted to consider the matter as a whole.
Thirdly, he pointed out that in regard to some aspects of the matter—especially the universities—there were unresolved problems, the subject of continued litigation, on which a final decision had not been given.
Fourthly, he pointed out that what action he took must be a matter of Cabinet decision, and that the scope and priority of any future legislation was a matter for the Cabinet and not for him. We agree with that, despite the recent Ministerial statement in Chicago.
But the Minister convinced us that he was anxious that this matter should be brought to a head, and I am grateful to him for holding that view. He was plainly anxious to introduce measures to deal with the complex problems involved on a comprehensive scale. He convinced us that he was as anxious to

do this as reasonably soon as a careful consideration of the problem and the determination of existing litigation permit. I was grateful for his statement, although it placed me in some difficulty. I had to come away from that deputation hoping that a future Parliamentary poet would record that
Never blew the Legislative rose so red
As where some buried Ten Minutes Rule Bill bled.
I was on the horns of a trilemma. If I went straight forward I was trying to explore a road which was not open; if I diverted to the right I was breaking an undertaking conveyed to the Minister, and my attention was called to the fact that if I diverted to the left it was technically possible to say that I might be transgressing a comparatively recent Ruling of Mr. Speaker's, in which the legal maxim well known to him, reprehending simultaneity of approbation and reprobation, had been applied in singularly exceptional circumstances to a Bill introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. I can only throw myself humbly upon your mercy, Mr. Speaker.
The present difficulty in which I find myself reminds me of a question once put to me by a client, who said. "Mr. Hale, I am an habitually truthful man, but is it not permissible for me to depart from the norm in a situation in which, if I tell the whole truth, I shall at once be convicted of fraud?" My difficulty is that I have had expressions of sympathetic interest from both sides of the House, from a large number of Members, with definite promises of support from some, and it would be impossible for me to take my Motion off the Order Paper without consulting them, in a period in which that was physically impracticable.
I felt, therefore, that I might commend to you, Sir, the well-known event in the life of Nelson and hope that, having put this case, I might conclude by saying that the Minister's arguments appeared to me convincing at the time, and that, as put by me today, they seem unanswerable. I think that I have thanked him for the courtesy of his reception, and I am grateful. If ever he comes to Oldham again I will not only stand him a lunch, but I will invite the mayor.
In the circumstances it was essential in the public interest that I should make this statement. I think that it would be desirable, in the public interest, that,


having made the statement, and having tried to take the sense of the House, I should seek to proceed no further. If it be permissible for me to say that I will not proceed further with the Motion, in what I think is the best interests of the societies concerned, I should like to do so, Mr. Speaker.
If it be necessary for you to put the Question, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to say that, although my heart is in the coffin with this statutory Caesar, I hope that in the best interests of an early solution of the problem the Motion which I moved in all sincerity will now be negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary to pull the hon. Gentleman's heartstrings. I do not think that, technically, Motion is moved in the circumstances.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.51 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I think it a tribute to those who framed the war-time War Damage Act that it has stood the test of fifteen years after the war before this very small amending Bill has been found necessary. In fairness to the House, I think that at the start of my remarks, which I will make as brief and as clear as I can, I ought to say that I recall a distinguished speaker from the Opposition Front Bench warning new Members at the start of this Session that they might have to sit through somewhat arid debates; so if they are reminded of that remark at the end of my speech they cannot say that they were not warned beforehand.
This Bill is concerned with buildings which sustained war damage involving "total loss" as defined in Section 7 of the War Damage Act, 1943. That is to say—I think that this a fair layman's way of putting it—buildings which it would have been uneconomic to restore to their former shape. Where war damage has caused total loss, the appropriate payment under the 1943 Act was what was called a value payment and the amount of a value payment has always been the depreciation in value caused by the damage, assessed by reference to prices ruling on 31st March, 1939, and increased by 45 per cent.
The War Damage Commission, the body responsible for making payments in respect of damage to land and buildings, was authorised by a direction issued by the Treasury in May, 1945, to make, in addition to a value payment, a payment of cost of works for the removal of useless remains from total loss sites, and to assess the value payment on the basis that the site was cleared of such remains.
I can explain quite simply what is the purpose of this brief Measure. The 1945 direction has recently been found to be ultra vires and the purpose of this Bill


is simply to revoke this direction to validate past payments made by the Commission in consequence of this direction, and to authorise the Commission to make payments for clearance on the same basis in the future.
I think that the House would wish me to say a few words about how the 1945 direction came to be made. This was a number of years before I came to the House and even, I think, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) became a Member of this House.

Sir Frank Soskice: Two months before.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, it was two months before.
The point is that by the middle of 1944 the Commission had completed the first stage of its work of classifying all damaged properties as eligible either for a cost of works payment or a value payment. The next stage was the issue of provisional estimates of the value payments to owners of total loss properties. Here, the Commission immediately found itself up against a difficulty which arose from the presence on war damaged sites of useless remains.
The amount of a value payment is the depreciation in value caused by the war damage; and to arrive at the amount of the depreciation the Commission has always had to assess the value of property in its state before the war damage, and in its state after the war damage. At the time when the valuer inspected the property he might find useless remains still on the site or, alternatively, they might have been removed by local authorities in the exercise of their emergency powers. But where a site still had remains on it, the after-damage value would be assessed on the basis of what was called an encumbered site—that is to say, the value of the site as at 31st March, 1939, less the net cost of clearing the remains at that date.
Clearance by local authorities under their emergency powers was treated as war damage, and where they had cleared the sites the after-damage value would be assessed as a site cleared of remains. Of course, the effect of local authority clearance of useless remains was normally, as the House will realise, to increase

the value of the property after damage and, therefore, to decrease the amount of the value payment. But there were other cases where the presence of useless remains decreased the value of the property after damage, and this increased the amount of the value payment normally by the 1939 net cost of clearance.
As I think the House will realise, this state of affairs caused inequality of treatment between different owners; the owner who had his site cleared for him by the local authority received, in effect, the current cost of clearance, while the owner left with an encumbered site could not receive in his value payment more than an allowance related to the 1939 cost of clearance.
In the circumstances, the Commission came to the conclusion that the only fair and practical way of removing this inequality was to pay for the actual cost of clearance when the work was done by the owner and to value all sites after damage on a cleared site basis. I use the words "cleared site basis", by which I mean a site cleared of debris and useless remains of buildings and structures, but in the normal case disregarding foundations, site concrete and retaining walls which were regarded as an inherent part of the site.
Accordingly, the Commission asked the Treasury to issue a direction under Section 20 of the Act to enable this to be done. Section 20 empowers the Treasury to give directions to the Commission for securing that in relation to a number of matters the provisions of Part I of the Act should be executed in conformity with the public interest. To give effect to such directions the Commission has power, where war damage in respect of which a value payment would otherwise be appropriate is made good in the public interest, to make a payment of cost of works in respect of the works executed in the public interest.
At the time when the Direction was made in 1945, in the view of the Commission and that of the Treasury, it was reasonable to say that there was a definite public interest not only in securing equality of treatment of claimants, but also in having war damaged sites encumbered with ruins made ready for redevelopment as soon as conditions permitted; it had been recognised early in the war that the clearance of bombed


sites for the sake of making them tidy, and so maintaining public morale, was desirable in the public interest.
In May, 1945, the Treasury issued a direction, Direction No. 11. I do not propose to weary the House by reading it out, but I will make this comment. If hon. Members look at the direction, they will see that the powers given in it were not to be exercised where they would have caused injustice to the owner.
For instance, if the owner, at the time of damage, had since sold his property at a figure which was reduced because of the presence of useless remains, it would clearly be unfair to assess the value payment on a cleared site basis, and to allow the new owner to claim the cost of clearance from the Commission. The same argument applied to sites compulsorily acquired by public authorities while still encumbered with ruins. In these cases, the after-damage value was assessed on an encumbered site basis, and the 1939 cost of clearance was reflected in the amount of the value payment to the original owner.
Now I should say a brief word or two about the practice of the Commission under this direction of May, 1945. When the Commission came to make its formal determinations of value payments, the notices of determination included a statement that the Commission was empowered to make, in addition, a payment of the reasonable net cost of clearance, and that the value payment had been calculated on this basis. This meant that owners of sites still encumbered were able to sell them in the open market with a prospective right to claim the cost of clearance from the Commission; but in cases of authorities with powers of compulsory acquisition the Commission was not empowered to pay this claim until October, 1958. The Commission interpreted the Direction No. 11 as authorising it to pay for the cost of removing loose debris resulting from the bomb and standing remains which detracted from the after-damage value; that is to say, such remains which the local authority would have removed under its demolition programme.
Later, however, there came about some easing of building restrictions, and large scale redevelopment of total loss sites became practicable. The Commission extended its practice to cover the

cost of removing foundations, site concrete, and so on, provided that these remains were structurally unsound, and only in so far as the unsound remains got in the way of the development that was being undertaken.
Recently, in considering the scope of its commitment, the Commission took legal advice on certain points, and was advised that Section 20 (1) of the War Damage Act could only authorise payments of cost of works for making good war damage, and the clearance of remains could not in itself be considered to be making good war damage. It follows from this that the direction and the bulk of the Commission's payments made under it were, in fact, ultra vires, and it was that legal ruling which led to the present Bill.
I ought, in fairness to the House and out of courtesy to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to explain why it took so long to discover this point. As I understand the position, the War Damage Commission and the Treasury took legal advice on the matter in 1944, when the Commission encountered the difficulty of dealing with total loss sites encumbered with rubble, and the Treasury direction was based on the legal advice that was then received. As a result of that, it did not occur to anyone to question its legality. But in 1958 the Commission took counsel's opinion as to the scope of its powers under this direction, and in this opinion, counsel also cast doubt on the vires of the direction itself.
I see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his place. Perhaps he feels as I do, that this is rather like the kind of difficulty that sometimes arises out of our system of public education. I will not pursue that point, but sometimes it does take a remarkably long time for a legal problem to be fully brought out into the open.

Mr. Ede: I was wondering how high in the judicial system the person who gave the original ruling has now reached. Can we be informed?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer to that question, though, on this point, I thought that it was only right for me to be truthful with the House about what actually happened.
This matter was reported to the Treasury, and legislation was devised which we had hoped to introduce immediately after the General Election. But the present time has proved to be the earliest occasion on which we have been able to seek Parliamentary authority for past and future payments.
I very much hope that it will not take very long to pass the Bill through both Houses of Parliament in order to put ourselves right with the law. I think that we should be able to pass this amending legislation into law reasonably soon. The Treasury has authorised the Commission to continue its former practice in the meantime. Nobody, I am sure, will doubt but that this is perfectly reasonable and sensible.
I should now say a few words on the Bill itself. Subsection (1) of Clause I revokes the direction, but validates all payments made by the Commission in consequence of it. That is perfectly straightforward. Subsection (2) authorises the Commission to make payments for clearance in the future, and, in the very rare case where the value payment has not already been determined, to assess the value payment on a cleared site basis. The clearance payments will not be cost of works payments as defined in the War Damage Act, but will be assessed in the same manner as cost of works payments, and will be payable to the person who incurs the cost of carrying out the work.
Subsection (3) defines the works of clearance for which the Commission may pay, and puts on a statutory basis the practice approved by the Commission since the 1945 direction was issued. It excludes remains which, in the opinion of the Commission, can reasonably be used in reinstatement of the building, and remains which cannot be so used, but which the Commission is satisfied do not interfere with the proposed reinstatement or redevelopment of the site. This latter class, is, generally speaking, foundations and other works below the lowest floor level of the old buildings, and is often located in parts of the site which will not be covered by the new buildings.
In conclusion, I should like to say that it is never a pleasant task for any Minister, senior or junior, to have to come to the House and ask for a validation

Measure of this kind, and to have to admit that we have been acting outside the law; although I think that I can fairly say that since the mistake was discovered we have been reasonably prompt in coming to the House and asking for the situation to be regularised.
I should like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work which the War Damage Commission has done since it was set up by the original War Damage Act in March, 1941. The Commission has paid over 4 million cost of works claims and nearly 180,000 value payment claims. Its total payments to date, are in the region of £1,255 million. Payments in the last calendar year were £13½ million, and it is clear from the facts and figures which I have seen that payments of this order must continue for a year or two longer. The cost of clearance payments is estimated at £2½ million, and that includes the whole of both past and future payments. This is a very small amount in relation to the total of war damage payments.
The administration of war damage payments has been in the hands of a largely independent body which, while subject to general directions, has been responsible for practice and day to day administration. In administering such a complicated Measure as the War Damage Act, there has, naturally, been room for some controversy, and this has increased with the passage of time. But the War Damage Commission has carried out a very large and difficult task with a very small amount of friction. I therefore trust that Parliament will see fit to accord the Commission and its public the justice and convenience which the present Bill offers.

4.9 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I think that the Financial Secretary has explained the purpose of this rather small Bill in a manner which nobody would seek to describe as arid, or unnecessarily arid. He has clearly indicated how the mistake arose, and I think that he will have satisfied all of us that, as soon as it was discovered, he took appropriate measures to come to the House and ask its authority to put the matter right.
Before I rose to address the House, I was relieved to discover that the Order was made in May, 1945. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, it was cutting


it a bit fine, but the illicit Order was used during the period of the Parliament of. 1945–51 as well as later, and, therefore, I am bound to concede that the Law Officers, during the course of that Parliament, were not less negligent than were their successors.
Obviously, the right thing to do is to put the matter right. I should like to know from the Minister, if he would be so good as to tell us, how much of the £2½ million is attributable to money paid out already unlawfully under the Order, and how much is estimated for future payments. He said that the war damage payments will last for something like a year longer. I suppose that these payments will continue for approximately that time, although I imagine that most sites have been unencumbered of debris and remains.
I think that we all agree that of the many Measures which have been passed since the beginning of the Second World War, the War Damage Act, 1943, and its predecessor in 1941 were among the most complicated. There are a number of others, for example, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and similar Measures. It would be surprising if, occasionally, their provisions were not misinterpreted and advice given that something could be done within their scope which afterwards was found to be defective. This is a typical case of that sort. I should have thought it was a mistake which could easily be made when one considers the wording of Section 20 (1) of the 1943 Act and the complementary subsection (3).
As far as I am concerned—and I think that I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—I do not think we would offer any objection at all to giving the Bill a Second Reading. I should like to compliment the Minister for having explained so clearly how the mistake arose, what it consisted of and satisfying us all that he has come to the House at the earliest possible moment to put it right.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to say a few words about the Bill because, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) described it rather small, it is an unusual Bill. Having had to

take legal opinion which you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to appreciate more than most back-benchers, one cannot help feeling a little surprised to find that we were misled when the Measure which this Bill amends was put through the House.
The Minister said that even at this late date the War Damage Commission has had to provide another £13½ million for war damage. In my constituency, Leith Town Hall was one of the earlier casualties of the war. Apparently. Edinburgh Corporation and the War Damage Commission have not yet reached agreement about how much is to be paid. I can well understand the difficulty which might have arisen, but I should like to know from the Minister whether, if we agree to a Second Reading of the Bill, it will facilitate the negotiations going on between Edinburgh Corporation and the War Damage Commission with a view to providing cash necessary to build a new town hall in Leith. It would be the one public hall we have in Leith.
I raise this matter with all due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who accuses the Scots of being a little parochial. Whatever he may say, this is important to a community like mine. I should like to feel that if I assent to the Bill being read a Second time the War Damage Commission will hurry on with the agreement with Edinburgh Corporation so that we can have the town hall which has been denied to us for so many years.

4.15 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I speak again by leave of the House in reply to the two speeches which have been made.
I am very grateful for the extremely courteous speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I can say in answer to the question he put that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill says that the cost of all past and future payments is unlikely to exceed £2½ million. It is not possible to be more precise than that, because the payments made hitherto have, in error, been regarded as cost of works payments and not separately accounted for.
It is virtually impossible to separate them now, but, in the opinion of the War Damage Commission, supported by the


evidence of recent months since we contemplated introducing this Measure, the past payments amount to rather less than £2 million and the amount of future payments will not exceed £½ million.
In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I do not think that I should ever accuse him of being particularly parochial as Scotsmen go, if I may put it that way. I do not think that the Bill will make much difference to the question he raised, but if he will write to me on it I shall make inquiries and see if anything can be done.

With those words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise payments in respect of the clearance of war-damaged land, it is expedient—

(a) to validate payments made before the commencement of that Act and purporting to be made in consequence of any Direction under section twenty of the War Damage Act, 1943, and
(b) to authorise the charging on, and issue out of, the Consolidated Fund of sums required by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present Session authorising payments in respect of the carrying-out of clearance work on developed hereditaments which have sustained war damage.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

4.18 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Coventry and Mid-Warwickshire) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, 1959, in the last Parliament, be approved.
This and the subsequent 13 Orders give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in its Report submitted to the Secretary of State on 20th July, 1959. The next three Orders give effect to the recommendations in the Report submitted on 1st January, 1960.
These Orders are submitted under Section 2 (3) of the House of Commons Redistribution Act, 1949, and are made in pursuance of subsection (5) of that Section. This and the subsequent Orders all make minor adjustments to constituency boundaries to conform with recent alterations of local government boundaries. They thus resemble a series of previous Orders approved by Parliament. As required by the principal Act, the proposed recommendations were published in at least one newspaper circulating in each constituency and facilities were afforded to those who wished to do so to submit recommendations about the proposals.
The Orders will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election after they come into force. I shall be very glad to answer any questions on this or the subsequent Orders if hon. Members are interested.

Mr. James H. Hoy: On a point of order. Are we discussing simply the first Order, Mr. Speaker, or are we taking them all together?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that it would be for the convenience of the House if, the Minister having made his general observations on the first Order, all the English ones were then put in succession, and perhaps a Scottish Minister might deal in parallel fashion with the Scottish series, if that be convenient. The present position is that the Minister has proposed the first Order only. I shall have to put the Question on each Order separately.

Mr. Hoy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to make sure that we would have an explanation from the Scottish Office about how the Scottish constituencies concerned would be affected.

Mr. Speaker: When we reach that point, I will allow an opportunity for that to occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Coventry and Mid-Warwickshire) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, 1959, in the last Parliament, be approved.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Gateshead) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July. 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucester and Stroud) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament. approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Grimsby and Louth) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Ilford and Woodford) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Leeds, York and Barkston Ash) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Lincoln and Grantham) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (North Somerset and Wells) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Oxford and Henley) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Portsmouth, Langstone and Petersfield) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Preston South and South Fylde) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (South-West Lancashire) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wandsworth, Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Barnsley and Wakefield) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House on 9th February], approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Middlesbrough) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved. [Mr.Vosper.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Walsall) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved. [Mr. Vosper.]

4.24 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Fife and Dunfermline Burghs) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
This Order and the following two Orders, concerning West Renfrewshire and Greenock and Midlothian and Edinburgh, are laid before the House under Section 2 (5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. They conform with the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland submitted to the Secretary of State on 9th January, 1960 (Command 73).
As the Report stated, the alterations proposed are in conformity with the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (b) of the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act which states:
in Scotland, no burgh other than a county of a city shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another".

Mr. James H. Hoy: I have only one thing to say. Any alteration in boundaries is important, although, perhaps these alterations are not quite as important as other alterations which have taken place. It might not be a bad thing for the Scottish Office to tell the people of Scotland who constitutes the Boundary Commission. This is exceedingly important. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can give this information, but boundaries are important to any parliamentary constituency. If suggestions are to be made concerning alterations in the boundaries, at least the people of Scotland should know who makes the recommendations. I should have thought that on an occasion like this the Joint Under-Secretary


might have been able to tell us who the people were.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Chairman of the Boundary Commission is, of course, Mr. Speaker. The Vice-Chairman, who, under the terms of the 1958 Act, must be a judge, is Lord Guest. I am not at the moment in a position to give the other names, but the hon. Member will be aware that there are two assessors, one of whom is the Registrar-General and the other the Director of Ordinance, who are able to speak on their particular subjects.

Mr. Hoy: What steps do they take to inform people in the constituencies that these alterations are to be made and what steps are open to the people to raise objections? How do the electors within these constituencies object to any alterations which might take place?

Mr. Macpherson: This is all controlled by the 1949 and 1958 Acts. It is all fully reported in the Report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is laid before the House and to which I have referred. By the terms of the Act, notice must first be given by the Secretary of State that a report is to be made. Then, the report is published in the Edinburgh Gazette and opportunities are given for representations to be received. No representations have been received in respect of any of these Orders.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that if the Joint Under-Secretary is unable to give the House the names of the members of the Commission on this occasion, he will let us have them in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Fife and Dunfermline Burghs) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Renfrewshire and Greenock) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]
Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Midlothian, Edinburgh East, Edinburgh South, Edinburgh West, and Edinburgh, Pentlands) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Orders of the Day — OCCUPIERS'LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2.—(EXTENT OF OCCUPIER'S DUTY TO SHOW CARE.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "is reasonable to see" and to insert:
will ensure as far as it is reasonable to do so".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook, in Committee, to have a look at this question. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that "ensure" or "secure" is more enforceable than "see". We regard "see" as inoperative, indefinite and in no way meeting the situation. What consideration has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given to this question in view of the undertaking he gave in Committee?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I can assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that I have considered this matter with considerable care. Indeed, when it was considered in Committee, I promised to examine it further to see whether any better form of words could be devised. I was frank in Committee, saying that I was not entirely satisfied with "see", but that I had not at that stage been able to find a better formula.
After much cogitation I am still in that position. The difficulty is that "ensure"—which, with "secure", seems to be one of the only two possible alternatives—is much too strong. In law, the word "ensure" carries with it in a reparation action for damages the implication that there is absolute liability. It is to be found in the Factories Acts, the Coal Mines Acts, and so on, where the liability depends not on failure to take reasonable care, but on the mere breach of obligation, irrespective of the amount of care taken. That is much too high an obligation to place on the ordinary occupier or person in control of property, and it would go far beyond what has ever been the law in Scotland in the past.
We did not slavishly copy the English Act, because we originally started with


a different Act. The word in the corresponding Clause in the English Act is "see". I do not say that that is by any means a conclusive reason for retaining "see". We must keep in mind that in the English Act of 1957 Parliament did for England what it now seeks to do for Scotland. If we have a different phrase in what I may call the basic provision of the two Acts, courts will be agile to say that if Parliament means one thing in the English Act it must mean something different in the Scottish Act.
I have tried to look up precedents. The only one I can find is a case dealing with the Building Societies Act, where the words are something like "take reasonable care to ensure". That is not unlike the phrase which the hon. Gentleman has in his Amendment. In that case, the judge said that he was much puzzled by the use of the word "ensure" in that context. I feel that judges would be somewhat puzzled if we used "ensure" here. Indeed, they might well have to address themselves to a different question from that to which we want them to address themselves. We want them to answer the question: has the defender in this case taken reasonable care or not?
If the Clause was amended in the way suggested, the courts would have to decide whether it was reasonable that there should be an absolute guarantee, which is a rather different thing. Accordingly, although with regret, I cannot conscientiously as a lawyer accept the Amendment. However, I assure him that I have made a search to see whether the phrase could be improved. I regret that I have not been successful.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I find the Solicitor-General's explanation very unsatisfactory indeed. All he said in his very long explanation was that he felt that he could not do this in a Scottish Bill because it might say something different from what was contained in its English counterpart. That is not an argument. I remember clearly that when we had the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act—which was a separate Measure, distinct from its counterpart for England and Wales—we insisted in the Scottish Grand Committee that the businesses concerned should be made to register.
That was a wide departure from what had taken place in the Measure as affecting England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, who then represented the Moray and Nairn constituency, listened to the argument of Scottish Members. After a fairly long argument, which is not unknown in the Scottish Grand Committee, he came to the conclusion that all the arguments were in favour of this change in the legislation. As a result, the Scottish Measure differed very distinctly from that which affected England and Wales. The argument advanced by the Solicitor-General carries no substance.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the law should be different in the two countries, or not?

Mr. Hoy: I do not know why the Solicitor-General asks me that. He knows that the law in Scotland is in many respects very different from that in England and Wales. For instance, Scottish courts can pronounce much wider judgments than courts in England and Wales. In England and Wales they can find the accused either guilty or not guilty. Courts in Scotland have that privilege, but, in addition, have the privilege of finding a verdict of not proven. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument carries no weight at all. If it proves anything, it proves to me that he has not directed his attention to what is intended by the Amendment.
By the Amendment we seek to provide that, as far as it is reasonable to do so, certain things will be ensured. I should not have thought that that was very difficult and that, on the whole, its language was very clear and distinct. It may be difficult for the courts to interpret, because so often we wrap Bills and Acts up in such verbiage that it is difficult for courts to make a clear statement of the position. However, that is no reason for rejecting the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to reject the Amendment, he should at least produce a much better argument than he has so far.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry if I gave the hon. Member the impression that I was merely following the English, and using that as an argument. I tried to make it clear that


that was only one of several reasons. My main objection to the Amendment is the use of the word "ensure", particularly in connotation with the words "reasonable care". As I have said, the combination of "reasonable care" and "ensure" has already puzzled at least one judge, and I believe that if we used it in this Bill it would puzzle many more. Although that might be a good thing for the lawyers—and I speak as one—I am quite sure that it would not be a good thing for the ordinary litigant.
I am not suggesting that the law should be the same in Scotland as in England merely because the English have a particular law. The English, in 1957, altered their law to bring it into line with what Scots law used to be. Now we are making progress by taking a step backwards—if I may put it in that rather Irish way—and bringing Scottish law into line with that in England, which is in line with what the Scots law used to be. We are, therefore, back where we were in 1928, or thereabouts, when the law was in a much more satisfactory condition in this sphere than it is at present.

Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are coming into line with England, why did he interrupt me to ask if I wanted to make the law in Scotland the same as that in England?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Merely because I thought that the result of this Amendment would be to make the law different whereas, in this case, we really want to make it the same, because England has already adopted what was the law of Scotland.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I am dissatisfied with Clause 2 as it now stands, and I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) whether he desired the law in Scotland and that in England to be different. Perhaps I may remind the

right hon. and learned Gentleman of what was said by his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State when we were discussing the principle of the Bill. His hon. Friend then said:
I shall shortly come to the reason"—
for the alteration in the law—
but I hardly think I need apologise in this Committee for the difference. Indeed, the Committee recommended that legislation should be drafted independently of any English Statute dealing with comparable subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 1st December, 1959; c. 6.]
The Solicitor-General for Scotland recognised that the law on this subject was different in the two countries. We may be taking, as he said, a step backwards, but the fact remains that the very reason for the introduction of this Measure was that there was a difference in the law in the two countries. I do not want to go back into all the questions involved in that difference—licensee, trespass, invitee, and the rest—but, on this issue, the law in Scotland and in England is entirely different.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we on this side were somewhat concerned in Committee about this word "see". The real meaning of the word is "to perceive mentally", because the verb "see" is naturally associated with vision. Therefore, a reading of the Clause as it stands would be "to perceive mentally". How can an obligation rest on an individual when the basis of that obligation is to perceive mentally?
Frankly, I am disappointed by the inability of the Solicitor-General for Scotland to find an alternative word. I thought that we had gone a long way to meet the situation by the words in the Amendment. Originally, we put down the word "ensure" in the existing context of the Bill, but we altered and enlarged the Amendment to leave out the words "is reasonable to see," and insert:
will ensure as far as it is reasonable to do so.
I cannot appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation that this was far too high an obligation to put on the occupier of property. Why is it far too high an obligation? Surely the occupier, as well as the owner, has an obligation, and we want to see it operating equally in both directions. As


I say, we are disappointed that he has not found it possible to accommodate us on this Amendment. At the moment, I feel that he has been largely guided by the fact that the word "see" appears in the English Measure, and, to that extent, the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not desire that the legal terminology of the Scottish Measure could be, or should be in any way different.
I do not accept that. The very basis of this Bill is that the Scottish legal terminology was not accepted in the English Measure. There is the principle of culpa. It was merely a question of legal terminology that compelled the Government to introduce this Measure, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that it would be wrong to alter the word "see" because that word is now in the English law dealing with occupiers' liability. I do not think that his attitude is logical, and I can only repeat that I am exceedingly sorry that he did not find it possible to accept our Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: First, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must apologise for not having been here when the debate opened. The Bill has come before the House rather earlier than I thought that it would, and I was at another meeting.
We have now reached the final stages of a Bill that implements the first Report of the Law Reform Committee. In passing, I must say that it has taken the Government a long time to implement one Report of that Committee. The Law Reform Committee has done a considerable amount of work up to now, and it is hardly paying to it the respect it deserves when we have to wait so long before its Reports are implemented. As a result of moves from this side, another of the Law Reform Committee's Reports has been implemented, and we hope that the others that have been produced will be given effect to much more quickly than has been the case here.
The Measure abolishes the doctrine of the three categories of invitees, licensees and trespassers which was imposed on Scottish law by the House of Lords decision in 1929. It is interesting to note that, whilst the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to stick to the English provision in respect of the word "see", this Measure still differs from

the English one in that, as I understand it, the latter still recognises the category of trespassers. In this Bill we do not recognise the category of trespassers. The Bill wipes out the three categories and returns to the ordinary common law principal of culpa, which is in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee.
On this side of the House we still feel that the Bill does not go far enough. It does not carry out all that the Law Reform Committee recommended. It does not deal with the problem of the dangers arising from animals—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but, of counrse, on Third Reading we are only concerned with what is in the Bill and not with what is left out of the Bill.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was making only a passing reference to the fact that the Bill did not include what the Law Reform Committee had recommended. I should like to ask whether the subjects which it recommended have now been remitted for further consideration to the Committee.
During the proceedings on the Bill, the Solicitor-General for Scotland promised to look at a number of matters in connection with it. From the absence of any Amendments on Report, it would appear that the result of his deliberations were not very fruitful. They certainly did not give birth to any Amendments on Report.
On one matter, which I raised during the Committee stage on two occasions, I think that something should be said before we finally leave the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that in Committee I raised the question of the liability of the occupier under the Bill when the owner of the property had disappeared. This is very common in Scotland. It is something about which most local authority representatives know, because it is their experience, when they take over houses or properties, that a number of the owners have disappeared. It is also known that in that event certain liabilities of the owner have, in fact, fallen upon the occupier.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland said during the Report stage that he had listened to the arguments which were made and that he did not think that any of the liabilities of the owner under the Bill would be transferred to the occupier in the event of the owner disappearing. He said that, in view of the discussions which had taken place, he would certainly confirm whether or no this was the position under the Bill.
This is a very important matter, particularly in respect of a great deal of the very old property, some of which has been almost condemned, that exists in the large cities. There is considerable concern as to what exactly are the responsibilities of the occupiers in respect of this property, and I think that we need a categorical assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that as a result of passing the Bill we shall not, in fact, pass any of the obligations under it on to the occupier in the event of the owner disappearing.
It would be out of order to raise some of the other matters which we dealt with in Committee, because I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we must deal with what is in the Bill. On this side we welcome the Bill so far as it goes. We hope that the Government will give some attention at an early stage to the matters that have arisen during the discussion of the Bill, particularly the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee concerning the defining of the responsibility of occupiers in respect—I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows to what I am referring—of dangerous agencies and animals. We hope that he will at least do that much more rapidly than the Government have attended to the matters concerned with in the Bill.

4.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for at least giving a qualified welcome to the Bill. I gather that he is in agreement with most of what is in it, although he would like to see more in it.
I can assure him that we shall keep in mind the points which he has raised. I cannot tell him offhand whether the question of liabilities for injuries caused

by animals has yet been referred to the Law Reform Committee but, if not, it is on its way. I will find out and let him know the exact position.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) complained, once again, that I had been following the English. That is not so. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out, we have differed from the English in as much as we have washed out trespassers and they are included in the ordinary common ruck to whom reasonable care has to be shown. So we have left the English behind on that.
On the question of laying down the standard of care, we have taken the broad view that it is better—and the Law Reform Committee recommends it—still to lay down that a reasonable standard of care must be observed rather than go into detail of examples of the type of matters that must be taken into consideration. That, again, we did deliberately and differently from the English. So far as the basic standard of scare is concerned—that is, the question of culpa—the English did just what we are doing. That is to say, in 1957 they adopted what I would call the Scottish doctrine of culpa as the basic principle behind the Bill and we are doing it in this Bill, not because the English did it but because that was the law of Scotland before 1928 and it worked extremely well.
As to the use of the word "see", it is not because the English use it that we are using it here but, first, because I cannot think of a better word, and I have not been able to find anyone who can, and also because the word "ensure", even if it is used with the words "reasonable care" attached to it, is a very dangerous word to use and would, in all probability, set a higher standard than the normal "culpa" standard of the common law, that is to say, it would impose on an occupier a higher standard than the ordinary standard of taking reasonable care in the circumstances.
I referred to the English Act because the courts would be much more likely to take the view, I think, that the word "ensure" in a Scottish Act meant a higher standard of obligation if, in similar circumstances in a similar Section in an English Statute which admittedly incorporated Scots law, a different and


less strong expression was used. That was the reason. It was not that I wanted the law to be the same in the two countries but merely because it would, I believe, lead to confusion if a different phrase were used.
Quite apart from that, as I pointed out before the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East came in, in the only case I can trace where the word "ensure" was used along with the words "with reasonable care", the judge confessed that he was puzzled by the word "ensure". As far as I can understand it, he gave it a meaning, as it were midway between the normal standard and the insurance standard, which none of us wants to do. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have tried to meet him on this point. I am only sorry that we have been unable to do so.
I have made inquiries about the position of occupiers when the owners have disappeared. At any rate, so far as I can discover, there have been no cases in Edinburgh or Glasgow, for example, where the local authorities have tried to foist the obligations of the missing landlord on to the occupier who is left in occupation. Equally, the Bill does not transfer what I might call the existing liabilities of the landlord on to the tenant in the event of the landlord disappearing.
Let us suppose, under the present law and under the Bill, that the landlord of a tenement house is missing. There is a hole in the kitchen floor. That is

fundamentally the landlord's responsibility, but if the tenant invites a friend in, does not put on the light and does not give him any warning, and the guest walks in and goes through the hole, there would be a very strong case against the tenant. This is not because he failed to repair the hole. It is because he failed to give reasonable warning and failed to give the guest an opportunity of seeing where he was going. The Bill does not in any way transfer liabilities from the missing landlord to the unfortunate occupier who is left stranded in the tenement house.

Mr. McInnes: I know the legal difficulties, but I take it that that still means that the owner of the property is responsible.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I think that I said in Committee that, provided he remains the owner, that is so. We still have a problem if he transfers the property to a man of straw or to a company with a paid up capital of £1. In that case his liability ceases as from the date of transfer of ownership. But that is a matter outwith the scope of the Bill, and I know the problems which arise.

I commend the Bill to the House because, whether early or late, it is an important Measure which will improve the law of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (GENERAL GRANT)

5.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1960, dated 28th January, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
Under Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, this Order must be accompanied by an explanatory report, and this has been published as House of Commons Paper No. 82 and laid at the same time as the Order.
The first General Grant (Scotland) Order made in 1958 prescribed the aggregate amounts of General Grant for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61. The Act enables me to increase the annual aggregate of the general grants for the current grant period in the event of unforeseen increases in prices, costs or remuneration the effect of which on the cost of providing the General Grant services is so large that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities. This is what the amending Order is designed to do.
The House will be aware that a similar Order to increase the aggregate grants for England and Wales has already been approved. The principal reason for this amending Order is the new scale of teachers' salaries which took effect from 1st January this year. It is estimated that this will add over £1 million to local authority expenditure in 1959–60 and £2·8 million in 1960–61. Salary awards to nursing and other staff in the employment of local health and education authorities and to officers in local government employment and other minor items have been taken into account, also.
Discussions with the local authority associations concerned, that is to say, the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of Counties of Cities, have, I am glad to say, resulted in full agreement both on the items eligible for consideration and on the estimates of the increased costs resulting from each item.
The Order provides that the aggregate of the general grants for 1959–60 and 1960–61 should be increased by £1·16 million and £2·33 million respectively.

This additional grant will be distributed to local authorities in precisely the same way as the original grant, in accordance with the formula set out in the Second Schedule to the Act.
The original grant settlement agreed with the local authority associations made a fair allowance for reasonable development which could be foreseen at the time. This amending Order fulfils the undertaking given to local authorities that they would not be asked to bear alone significant rises in the cost of General Grant services which neither we nor they could predict at the time of settlement.

I commend the Order to the House.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is keeping the promise made and giving an increase where unforeseen rises in expenditure have taken place or are expected to take place. Local authorities, naturally, always welcome any crumbs which fall from the table. It is right to say, however, that in this instance the proposed increase is insufficient to meet the increased expenditure which can be foreseen at this time.
In the House of Commons Paper we are given an estimate of the increase for 1959–60 as £1·13 million and for 1960–61 as £3·73 million. In my judgment, no account has been taken of certain increases in education. It is true that there is a reference to teachers' salaries, but there are other items of expenditure in education which, obviously, will increase this year and next year. I have in mind particularly the fact that the bulge in the school population will, this year and next year, in many counties, reach the secondary departments. Everyone recognises that it is more costly to provide education facilities of one kind and another in the secondary departments of our schools than it is in the primary departments. For example, the equipment is certainly much more expensive.
There is a growing number of pupils in the top forms of the high schools of Scotland. This is something which we very much welcome, but this in itself brings about another increase in expenditure inasmuch as many of the pupils are entitled to higher school bursaries. We welcome, also, the increase in the


number of students entering universities. There was an increase in university bursaries last year and, no doubt, that will be taken into account, but the fact that more students from the various counties are to enter universities will bring about a further increase in expenditure which I doubt very much has been taken into account in making the calculations.
In addition, the Betting and Gaming Bill now in Committee will, if it becomes an Act, lay upon local authorities further commitments in respect of the licensing arrangements required under it. Also, I very much doubt whether any provision has been made for increased expenditure as a result of the mental health legislation now before the House.
Most important of all, there is no reference whatever in the Paper to the recent increase in the Bank Rate. Obviously, an increase of 1 per cent. in the Bank Rate has tremendous repercussions on the revenues of local authorities. There are four authorities in my constituency. Kirkcaldy, which is the largest of them, reckons that in a full financial year an increase of 1 per cent. will cost something like £25,000 in terms of its rate poundage. That would require an increase of about 9d. in the £ in rates. No mention of that is made in the Paper.
It would appear that the effect of the new grant structure will mean that local authorities will have to cut still further their housing programmes. Many housing programmes have already been cut by virtue of the reduced housing subsidies introduced some years ago, but this, obviously, will mean a further cut.
I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the three years from 1954 to 1957 the capital debt of local authorities in Scotland increased by something like £51 million. In 1958 the increase in the debt had fallen to £46 million and in 1959 it had fallen to £39 million. I am quite sure that the present indication is that 1960 win see a further decline in the capital debt. That is a matter for regret because it means that many people in Scotland will have to wait much longer before being adequately housed.
Paragraph 3 of the Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland, House of Commons Paper No. 16, referring to Section 2 (1) of the Act, states:

In fixing the aggregate amount of the general grants for any year the Secretary of State shall take into consideration"—
then it sets out sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to which I have referred—
the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services.
We can assume, therefore, that in the light of this qualification the Secretary of State deems it necessary that, owing to the general economic conditions of the country—despite the fact that we have been told in the last six months that we have never had it so good—the local authorities will have to cut back their housing programmes and many of the provisions which they are required to make for the benefit of the community.
The reason for the reduction in grants was referred to in paragraph (17) of the Scottish White Paper, Cmnd. 208. It stated:
The reasons for this proposal, as explained in paragraphs 26 to 29 of the English White Paper, are briefly that local authorities now receive more from Government grants than from the rates.
I suggest that that is an understatement, and, in fact, an attempt to cover up the real reason for the introduction of this form of grant. The English White Paper was much more specific when it said that the main reason was to reduce the amount of grants being paid to local authorities. It would appear that the Government are determined to achieve national solvency at the expense of local authority bankruptcy.
When the increase in the grant formula was being discussed in 1957, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said:
… we"—
the Government—
have puzzled, mystified and bemused the councillors and officials and the tenants in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July. 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1101.]
I suggest that the mystification was quite deliberate. Several Measures which later became Acts were introduced in the House at that time, and their net result was that the ratepayer and the rent payer had to pay more. That was the extent of the mystification. The other result was a net increase in rates.
I hope that, even if he is not prepared to increase the amount which he suggests for 1959–60, the Secretary of State will at least reconsider the position for 1960–61 and be a little more generous in making the allocation for the unforeseen expenditure which one envisages in that period.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I speak as the representative of a constituency which forms part of a town that has benefited from the new General Grant, or, at least, from the method by which that grant is distributed. It is true, of course, that Edinburgh benefited as a result of the change in the rating of industry and of the new proposals to the extent of something like a rate of 10d. in the £. But, apart from that, there are one or two questions which I wish to ask the Secretary of State about this Order.
Paragraph 2 of House of Commons Paper No. 82, explaining the Order, says:
Section 2 (2) of the 1958 Act provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State that during any grant period any unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs or remuneration, and that its effect on the cost of providing services giving rise to relevant expenditure is of such magnitude that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities, the Secretary of State shall by Order increase the aggregate amount of the general grants.
In the course of his speech introducing the Order the Secretary of State said little more than, if as much as, is contained in the House of Commons Paper. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would at least have given us much more information than is given in the Paper. If he simply intended to repeat what was in the Paper, then I am bound to say that it seems to me that he was—I was about to say wasting the time of the House, but he was not exactly doing that—hardly being fair to the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) pointed out, what the 1958 Act says is, of course, something quite different. It says not only that the Secretary of State must take into account any change in the level of prices, costs or remuneration, but also, in Section 2 (1, b), that he must take into account
any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services giving rise to relevant expenditure,

so far as the fluctuation is attributable to circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole which are not under the control of local authorities.
Recent events seem to me to have created circumstances which would fall within the meaning of that subsection. I am thinking particularly of the events in West Lothian. The advent of large motor-car factories will cause extra local government expenditure.
Other events are taking place in Scotland which, in my view, will increase the cost of local government expenditure, and I think that we are entitled to ask to what extent, if any, these events have been taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman in calculating the General Grant for 1960–61. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in Section 2 (1, c) of the 1958 Act we are told that the Secretary of State should also take account of
the need for developing those services
to which the Order applies.
The first question that I want to ask is this. Why has not the Secretary of State, in the preparation of this House of Commons Paper explaining the provisions, mentioned anything about these two subsections of Section 2? He confined himself solely to the considerations which fall within Section 2 (1) of the 1958 Act. It also appears, when we study the estimates of the additional expenditure, that he has taken into account nothing other than awards to teachers, nurses and allied staff, local government officers, doctors, dentists, janitors, domestic helps, manual workers, domestic staff, firemasters and retained firemen, the increased cost of schoolchildren's transport and the effects of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959.
My hon. Friend was right in referring to some of the responsibilities which local authorities in Scotland have to face. On 30th July, 1959, the treasurer of Edinburgh, in presenting the accounts and fixing the rates for 1959–60, said:
Since the making of the first grant order several unforeseen increases have already taken place in the costs of relevant services in the United Kingdom—medical, dental, teaching, administrative and other salaries, such items as the chiropody service, pension increases, higher prices for electricity, and so on—and there looms also the likelihood of a great expansion in the mental health service.
We discussed the matter of mental health last week, and the burden of


every speech was that the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill cannot be implemented without a vast expansion of mental health services. We heard about the increased number of workers who would be required by local authorities and about after-care centres and occupational therapy centres which would be needed. Speech after speech, particularly from this side of the House, dealt with that matter. Hon. Members also spoke about the extra accommodation which local authorities would have to supply for elderly people. There is still a very large programme of work to be undertaken by local authorities for the provision of accommodation for old-age pensioners.
This Order appears to me, from the Explanatory Note, to take no account of the increased expenditure that local authorities might have to bear. The Treasurer of Edinburgh, who, incidentally, is not a Socialist, said in his speech on 30th July:
Freedom to make decisions without central sanction"—
which was the great argument of the right hon. Gentleman—
has little attraction if financial difficulty renders it quite nugatory.

Miss Margaret Herbison: He was late in learning it.

Mr. Willis: Yes, but at least he has learnt it. What he says is very relevant. Perhaps I might read it again to the right hon. Gentleman:
Freedom to make decisions without central sanction has little attraction if financial difficulty renders it quite nugatory.
It is obvious from the White Paper that local authorities will continue to be faced with increasing financial difficulties. This will render meaningless a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, because local authorities have not the elbow room in which to express themselves as they should.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other services. I have no intention of repeating what he said. I do not know the increase in expenditure for the present year, 1959–60, for other local authorities, but in Edinburgh the increase in the net revenue expenditure for this year alone is over £500,000. When one compares the population of

Edinburgh with the population of Scotland—roughly 10 per cent. or probably less—it seems to me that, if the same pattern applies throughout Scotland, the increase in net revenue expenditure for Scotland will be about £5 million or £6 million.

Mr. James McInnes: That is what it is.

Mr. Willis: It is against that background of £5 million or £6 million increase in net revenue expenditure that we must consider the additional assistance being given by the Government, which is £1·16 million—less than a quarter of the increase. That does not seem to me to be helping local authorities to meet their obligations or to carry out the programmes announced by the Government—expansion of mental health and technical education services and a great expansion in schools, and so on.
Surely the Government should be far more generous in their treatment of Scottish local authorities. It seems to me that the assistance to be given by the Government is too small. As the treasurer of Edinburgh said—I like to quote him because he is a Tory—
… the financial problem is growing no less but rather is becoming greater …
He went on to give the figures. It seems to me that the Government are not treating Scottish local authorities fairly, nor are they facing up to their responsibilities. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give us much more information about what he visualises will happen in Scotland during the current year and the ensuing year, for which this grant is being fixed. If it is limited to increases in salary alone, as it seems, frankly, it is not enough. Account should be taken of the other factors which we have mentioned, about which I should like some information.
I ascertained the figures in respect of education in Edinburgh to see whether we were any better off under the present system than under the old system. While it is difficult to calculate, I very much doubt whether Edinburgh is better off. I think that probably Edinburgh is worse off and that the assistance in education under the present system is less than the amount we could have expected under the old system. I have gone into the


figures, and it seems to me that Edinburgh is slightly—not greatly—worse off. That is not good enough. We ought to have a great deal more information before we approve this Order.

5.30 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: A year or two ago, when we were discussing the Bill under which this Order was made, the Caithness County Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and then to me. The county council was apprehensive that under the change from the old system to the General Grant system it would be a loser. This was a matter of great concern to Caithness because of the great Dounreay development and what would flow from it in the need for new schools, new roads and so on. The county council pressed its case, and I was glad to support it.
I have a letter from the Secretary of State, dated 15th December, 1958, in which he gives me a categorical assurance that the county council would incur no loss in the first of these years and not more than 10 per cent. in the second of these years.
There is a dispute between the Scottish Office and the county council on this issue. The county council says that its loss is £11,700. Hon. Members need no imagination to realise what that means to a landward area in which almost every subject is derated and in which heavy indents have to be made on the two small towns of Thurso and Wick. Thurso is faced with a rate of about 35s. in the £ as a result of this, and of course the people there are very upset.
I do not like to suggest that the Secretary of State has defaulted, but I have his letter and I have shown it to him. I have met him, and he has kindly written to me about it in the last twenty-four hours, but it is a long and technical reply and I have not yet had time to read it.
I felt that I must raise this issue because there is no doubt that the county council believed what was written in that original letter. So did I. I urged the county council to accept the Secretary of State's assurance that no loss would be incurred, and the county council blames me for asking it to accept that. Of course, it would have made no

difference whether the county council had done so or not.
What makes a great difference to the community is that every one of the items on which expenditure has been incurred, principally new schools which are needed because of this great inflow of population, has been authorised by the Secretary of State. They are all in accordance with the code of education laid down by the Secretary of State. These things were known at the time. It was known that they were about to happen. Indeed, that was the case which the Secretary of State had to consider, and he allayed the apprehension of the county council by saying, "Your losses will be met in the first year and to within 10 per cent. in the second year." That has not occurred, and but for a fortuitous revaluation of the Dounreay development plant, raising the income of the Caithness County Council by over £11,000, the county would have been £22,000 or £23,000 worse off.
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. These counties cannot afford such losses. The depopulated and decaying county of Caithness has had the great plum of Dounreay, which has been a great advantage, but it cannot bear rates in any way approaching the figures I have mentioned. I urge the Secretary of State in presenting this Order to make certain that he has sufficient funds to meet the needs not only of my constituency but also of any others which are similarly situated.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: We are debating an Order of very great importance to the people of Scotland. We are dealing with an increase in the general Exchequer grant to make provision for increased salaries in connection with the social services operated by the local authorities. Hon. Members should have a deep interest in these matters because they condition the ordinary everyday lives of the people in their relationship with local authorities and the social services which they receive. I recognise that we cannot deal with the general principle of the block grant, but we are considering how local authorities must decide to prune one service against another in order to spread the block grant over all the services.
The Government are compelled to bring forward this Order because of recent increased costs or negotiated wage awards. It is important for all Scottish Members on both sides of the House to show their concern, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has done his duty to his constituents, although I see great, empty spaces on the other side of the House, where apparently no regard is being paid to this increase in the block grant which will augment the local authorities' finances. We have a situation in which the Secretary of State has to augment the previously agreed Exchequer block grant, and in that situation it is imperative that Scottish Members should make certain that the suggested increase is large enough to cover the services which it is supposed to cover.
Listed in the House of Commons Paper, Local Government Finance (Scotland), we see an "award to teachers." We know about that and we need not discuss it other than to say that in some respects it is quite insignificant. We also see an
award to nursing and allied staff".
Will the Secretary of State indicate what that covers? Does it mean all the other people in and around hospitals? I am not referring to the domestic staff, who are covered in the last item,
Other increases in costs and pay".
Does this item cover the gardening staff, the technical staff and the boiler staff? Who are covered by the award to nurses and allied staff'?
We ought also to take note of the fact that the increase in General Grant is for the current year and for next year. Has the Secretary of State estimated as nearly as possible the upward trend in costs in arriving at the amounts which he has allocated to these years? The Bank Rate has been increased to 5 per cent. Has he paid attention to what that will mean annually in increased loan charges for all the local authority work in Scotland which will take place during this year and next?
The right hon. Gentleman recognises, I am sure, that much local authority work has been left in abeyance since the war. Take our roads programme, for example. There has been patchwork here and there, all the big schemes being

held up. The local authorities are now urging on every occasion they can that much more of the road works be carried out. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate of what will be the impact on the local authorities of the cost of all the schemes of road works, including the renewal and the widening of bridges, which are cluttering the books of local authorities awaiting consent for them from the Department? Has he estimated that in arriving at this General Grant increase for the two years ahead?
I stressed during the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it was stated that there would be no net increase in costs because of the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, in reply to me, said that there would be a fairly substantial increase in costs and that they would be met by direct Government grant—in other words, the block grant, which is the only way the local authority purposes can be met in providing more special schools for children who cannot attend ordinary schools. Much more money will be spent. I take it that the Secretary of State expects that there will be a start with expenditure of that sort within the next two years. Or is he telling us tonight that that Bill will not come into operation and will have no effect at all on local authority expenditure until the end of the financial year 1960–61?
The same question arises in connection with the Betting and Gaming Bill. Local authorities, I understand, are to be licensing authorities for the betting shops which are to be scattered up and down Scotland. There is to be a special licensing authority set up, with officials and so on. All this will cost money. Has that been allowed for? We know that there will be a tedious period in Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill, but do the Government think that that also will be delayed in the next two years and not brought into operation before?
I want to ask one further question and I shall be content with that for now. We see on page 3 of the Paper that included in increases in costs and pay are
pay awards to doctors and dentists, janitors, domestic helps and manual workers, domestic staff, firemasters and retained firemen".


It is on that category of firemasters and retained firemen I should like to ask a question.
Am I correct in thinking that the increase is to allow only for the added wages or remuneration of firemasters as such and of part-time firemen? This is an important point and I want the Secretary of State to be seized of it. It is an important matter for his constituency as well as mine. Does the term "retained firemen" mean "part-time firemen"? Does it mean part-time firemen retained in the services of the local authorities?
I take it that it means that, and, if that is so, there is no doubt that the ordinary fireman has been altogether left out of the calculations of this Order. If the ordinary firemen up and down Scotland have not been brought into the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, I think he is making a very big mistake indeed, because there is very great resentment on their part. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the basic wage of these firemen is only £10 7s. 6d. a week, less £1 deductions for insurance and so on?
The are having a very big struggle to keep their homes going on this wage. The Press are becoming quite scathing in their remarks about it. The Guardian—of Manchester—dealing with the problem on 3rd February had this to say:
Firemen have, like the police, suffered a loss of status since the war. Today a fireman's pay is well below the national average for industry and this, coupled with the long hours and turns of night duty, have had a bad effect on the standard of recruits.
This applies to Scotland as well as England, and these conditions are leading to headlines in our local Press, which says that "Scotland's firemen are burning with rage", that they are "inflamed about their conditions", that they
angry at conditions within their service and claiming that they are becoming the Cinderella of the public services.
It is significant when a national paper like The Guardian comes to the aid of the Scottish Press in pinpointing what the firemen have to say about the great injustices in the pay structure for firemen. The Secretary of State ought not to be giving a General Grant increase only for firemasters and retained firemen, for by doing that he will only

excite in the service even more resentment, and the local authorities are having difficulty enough through their joint boards in recruiting the sort of personnel they want for this very necessary service of protection against fire.
I hope that we shall have some explanation why the firemen have been left out. If the Secretary of State has not and does not intend to have some sympathy with the pay claims of firemen which have been pressed unceasingly for a long time now, can he tell us at least when he will grapple with this problem, and whether there will be a further General Grant increase to cover the firemen as well as the other categories mentioned?

5.50 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I want to assure the Secretary of State for Scotland straight away that there is no danger of Scottish Members voting against the Order. After all, there is to be an increase in respect of 1959–60. But let us remember that most of that year has already gone and that one of the great glories that was claimed for the block grant was that we should be dealing in advance with the local authorities. Here we are, so shortly after its introduction, already trying to catch up with arrears. Indeed, the fact that the Secretary of State, just after a year's experience of the first Order, has had to introduce an amending Order is itself one of the weaknesses of the whole block grant scheme.
We are getting an increase on 1959–60 of £1,160,000. When, just over a year ago, the Secretary of State said to the local authorities, "You get £50,125,000" we did not quite expect that before a year had passed he would say that he would have to increase that sum by over 2 per cent. When he introduced the original Order he said, looking ahead, that prices would rise by about 4 per cent. and that, therefore, instead of getting £50 million, the local authorities would get £52 million. He now tells us that they must have £54·4 million. Between the original sum laid down for 1959–60 and the new sum in respect of 1960–61 there is an estimated increase of nearly 8 per cent.
I am tempted to ask why the Government are so late in bringing in this revised block grant, because the first


part of it deals with the year 1959–60, which ends on 15th May, and that is not very far ahead. The Government should have appreciated that some of these increased costs were bound to come some time. Has it come as a surprise to them that teachers are receiving an increase in salary? After all, that increase came into force on 1st January.
I put it to the Secretary of State that if he had gone to the country just before the General Election and said that the cost of living had risen by so much, that salaries and remuneration had risen and that the Government had to ask the taxpayers for an extra £1,160,000 in respect of the current year and an extra £2⅓ million in respect of the next year, it would have made part of Tory propaganda—that the party had kept down the cost of living—look silly.
At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has met an obligation which he accepted under Section 2 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), in a very able speech, quite rightly reminded him, Section 2 contains other things and the right hon. Gentleman could have revised the grant to cover new services being introduced.
This Order is related purely and simply to increases of salaries, wages and pensions. There is no question here of meeting a great surge of local authority services. This, from a local authority point of view, is a depressing document. It relates to what has actually happened and to the salaries which are being paid at present. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows very well what is happening in my constituency. We have a new school at Kirkstile, but we cannot open it because we have not got the teachers. I understand that it will be opened now some time in March. The opening has been postponed of a new school, urgently needed for the provision of primary education, which could not be opened in time because there were no teachers available.
I looked at the documents and tried to find out whether the Government are confident that the shortage of teachers in Scotland will be tackled, but the sum mentioned in the Order is what the

authorities will receive not in the year ending in 1960 but the year ending in 1961. If there had been an extension of the services, an increase in the number of teachers as well as increases in salaries for teachers, we should have had to face a far bigger bill. Therefore, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he is budgeting in this increased sum for an increase in the number of teachers.
I can remember hon. Members opposite making bold speeches about all this during the election. There were to be so many more new teachers, and places were to be provided here, there and elsewhere. No wonder they are now silent.

Mr. James H. Hoy: They are not here.

Mr. Ross: But that fact will not prevent their going on the platforms and telling us that we have been holding up House of Commons business by discussing matters which are vital to Scottish local authorities.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) is smiling. When he tells his local authority that it is to receive an increased sum, the local authority will tell him that the Government are not meeting the whole bill and that, in respect only of eligible services, the local authorities this year have to raise £750,000 throughout Scotland.
In other words, all the calculations of the town chamberlains in Scotland in the aggregate are out by £750,000 and in the current year they have to find, in addition to what they might well have expected in relation to the block grant, another £1,400,000. In other words, the rates are going up.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Argyle will smile when he meets his local authority and its members tell him their side of the story. It is most likely that he just will not go and meet them, or that he will give them only one bright little picture—that the Government are giving the authorities a little more.
I hope that the Secretary of State will answer quite a number of the questions which have already been asked in the debate. Among the people who are receiving an increase under the provisions made by this Order are teachers. By the way, has the Secretary of State turned down the claim of those teachers who think that they have been dealt with


unfairly in the recent salary negotiations? What about the certificated, non-graduate women teachers who were trained between 1919 and 1926 and who, from my personal experience, are the backbone of the primary departments in Scotland? They are far from satisfied that they have been treated justly and they want an increase.
Has the right hon. Gentleman answered that question by way of this Order and they are not to have any more? We want to know all this by the time we come to make speeches in relation to the ordinary teachers' salaries. Does the laying of the Order mean that he is obdurate to the pleas made by these people, or does it mean that he accepts that their pleas are justified and that they should have an increase in salary to bring them up the scale in relation to the men who were trained at the same time, on the basis of equal pay, and that he will introduce yet another increase Order in relation to the general grant? I think that that is what it means, but we must have an answer.
Then there are the local government officers. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me which local government officers are covered by the Order? It is not so long ago—a matter of weeks—since notice of yet another increase for local government officers came before the Ayr County Council, which decided not to pay it. When one thinks of the hullabaloo that there is about the railwaymen getting another Is in the £, and how easy it is for some other people to get increases almost unknown to those who have to foot the bill, I think that we are entitled to know whether the latest notice of increase to come before the Ayr County Council is additional to the one which is covered by the Order.
Also covered are doctors, dentists, janitors, domestic helps and school children's transport. The Order deals with unforeseen increases in the level of prices, costs or remunerations, and there is no provision for new services at all, and no provision for expansion of the present services, many of which, as the Government themselves frankly admit, are not adequate.
There is also the question of the increased number of teachers. I wonder

whether the Government, who pride themselves upon their school building programme for this year, appreciate the cost which will be involved in staffing these schools. Have they increased the number of teachers available to take into account the needs of these schools? What about staffing for technical education? There is to be a great increase in technical education and the teachers engaged in it. Has that been provided for, or has the local authority to meet the cost from this vague, generalised block grant in which nothing is placed aside for any particular services and which eventually leads to certain financial difficulties within local authorities?
I imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have some explanation to give us in respect of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. I am glad that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned this subject. We were quite taken with the fact that we had a great new Bill, which is in many ways a tremendous advance, providing new services, or seemingly new services, and placing certain responsibilities upon local authorities. Yet we were told that it would not involve a new net charge. What about it? Is the Bill not to be in operation during the year 1960–61? If it is, will it involve local authorities in increased expenditure in respect of the services which are laid down in Part II or an expansion of the existing services?
The Secretary of State for Scotland met our criticism on Second Reading by saying, "It is covered by the block grant provisions. The money will be provided in that way." However, when we scan the block grant provision we find nothing relating to an increase. Indeed, there is provision in the block grant related to 1957, and there is no increase in services provided for. Or does the Secretary of State intend to think again and come along with yet another block grant? He might well do so. If he does he will be proclaiming the inadequacy of the block grant procedure in relation to planning two or three years ahead. It is a fairly blunt instrument for planning when one cannot make provision for a specific service which one wants to see advanced and developed speedily and widely.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises what has already been the effect on local authorities in respect of many of the services outside the block grant by reason of the inadequacy of what has already been provided and, certainly the inadequacy of the present increase. It has led to considerable financial stringency within local authorities and to the cutting of many services which some people may not consider absolutely essential, but which are certainly helpful in local authority life and in life of some of our towns. For instance, less maintenance work is being done on the roads and less repair work is being carried out. There is sometimes even a cutting down of essential cleansing work in respect of collection. All these services are equally affected by rises in costs and remuneration.
I wonder whether, in calculating the block grant and the increase, the Secretary of State for Scotland has paid any attention to the effect of increased traffic. Does he doubt that during 1960–61 there will be congestion on Scottish roads? This will throw more work on the police. I know that the police are outside the block grant provisions, but their motor patrols are not. I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong about this.

Mr. Manuel: More money is required for motor patrols.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that more money will be required for that purpose, but under these provisions the local authorities will not get any more money for that purpose.
I have said that I think that the Order is a pessimistic document because it is a recognition by the Government that they have failed to halt Tory inflation. In fact, the inflation is greater than the Government estimated when they set up this procedure in 1958. The Order is even more depressing because, given the Government's willingness to expand certain essential services in relation to education and mental health, the fact that they do not do anything in this latest look into the future shows that they realise in advance that they will fail.
I hope that the Secretary of State will dispel some of the gloom. I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has all these things in mind and that as soon as he is convinced that they can be done

he will hasten to the House of Commons, with a host of supporters behind him—

Mr. Hoy: They are not here tonight.

Mr. Ross: —the vigilant Scottish Press will not, I am sure, notice that—and place before the House yet another Order for an increase in the block grant. Only if he does that will he meet the needs of Scotland in respect of the services at present being conducted and as we hope to see them being developed.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to say a few words on this subject in support of the case which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I should like to feel that if there is one category of public servants whose claims are to be given attention under the Order it is the firemen in Scotland. They give tremendous service to the public.
One finds it a little difficult to understand why the Government, when they can increase the defence Estimates by £150 million, should find it so difficult to make provision for this admirable form of public service. Indeed, I think that it is a commentary on the Order which we are discussing that when we have increased the Service Estimates from £1,500 million to £1,650 million we have the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) wondering how his local authority can be compensated to the extent of £11,700. It seems to me absolutely ludicrous that the Scottish provisions should present a tremendous difficulty to many people in that part of Scotland while so much money appears to be available for other purposes.
One can well understand—I think it was right—that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland should raise this matter. We have had the development at Dounreay, which we all welcome, as the hon. Gentleman does, but it brings with it certain commitments which the local authority cannot avoid. The hon. Gentleman is right to try to ascertain whether the burden which has been placed on the local authority has been foreseen by the Scottish Office and whether provision has been made to meet it. These are two things which strike one immediately one comes to consider this Order.
One thing stands out in Scotland, and certainly in the City of Edinburgh, and


no doubt it applies to many other cities and burghs. If one takes the capital city, the rate expenditure there has been doubled and the local authority says that this is placing an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the local ratepayers. One would like to feel that when the Government come to make up their mind about these measures they give consideration to problems of this kind. It is no use the Government saying that we are living in better times, that we have never had it so good, and that more people are driving and owning cars if they are not making provision for roads on which those people can travel. In Edinburgh we have to carry this tremendous burden. One would like to feel that when the Government came to make up their mind on this particular measure they took into consideration the burden that Edinburgh—and Glasgow very soon—has to face in connection with the Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised the question of teachers and whether provision had been made for increases in their salaries. For a certain section of teachers it would not require an Order from the Government to make provision for this. I have teachers in my constituency, who, as a result of the new agreement, find themselves enriched by the handsome sum of 7½d. per week. They regard this as rather insulting and are wont to place the blame on the Educational Institute for Scotland as if, in fact, the Institute had reached this agreement.
This is an insulting increase to people who are doing such a magnificent job in education. I am bound to tell the Secretary of State tonight that that section of the educational community is not going to be satisfied with miserable increases of that kind and is going to make further demands on the local authorities to meet what it thinks are rightful increases in salaries. If it does so, and the local authorities have to carry the burden, then the local authorities are entitled to be assured that the central Government will make adequate provision to meet such increases.
It has been said that a Conservative Government would bring about price stability. However, when we hark back to the old days in Edinburgh of the 7s. 11d. rate we go back to the days of

the Labour Government. The rates of Edinburgh have gone up to 17s. 10d. with the advent of a Tory Government. That is the situation, and the local ratepayers in Edinburgh place the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government, who throughout these years, have thrown the burden of taxation more and more on the local ratepayers. One has only to think of the way in which they got rid of the housing subsidies and placed them on the shoulders of the local authorities to realise why the rates have gone up so much.
The Government are responsible for increases in the rates, but the local authorities have to carry them. We have to ensure that the burden will become no heavier because of lack of foresight by the Government. We want an assurance tonight that for teachers, for firemen—to whom we are indebted for such loyal service—and for roads, the Government will make adequate provision for satisfying the needs of the local authorities.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

6.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: In the circumstances I ought to say "Welcome strangers" to some of the Conservative Members opposite.
Whatever else we may say, in a way we welcome this Order which does, at least, make good some of the extra expenditure which has been incurred by the local authorities. There was a considerable suspicion when a General Grant Order was introduced that more and more of the local authorities would be left high and dry with extra expenditure without the Government necessarily increasing the General Grant. I am not clear upon one point and I would like the Secretary of State to explain it. When expenditure increases, perhaps as a result of Government policy or instructions, does the local authority bear the extra cost until such time as a General Grant increase brings in an increased income, and is that retrospective to the time when the additional expenditure starts? It is quite true that this is being


introduced to compensate for increased salaries, but, if these increases were retrospective to June last year, would the General Grant reimburse the local authorities for the increased expenditure in a particular year?
One of the great difficulties from which we in Scotland suffer in wage negotiations and changes is that we are very often about six months behind England and that our people lose on the delay. Have the local authorities always a gap to make up out of their own expenditure or will the Government, as a result of increased expenditure, automatically reimburse them back to the date of increase?
This Order is being introduced to meet an increase in teachers' salaries. That increase had for its purpose the attraction of teachers to the profession. Have the Government solved the problem by this? I understand that at the moment they are applying a kind of direction of labour to the teachers in Scotland. I understand also that in the West of Scotland, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, there is a great scarcity of teachers, and in Glasgow, where there is also a very great dearth of teachers, the Government are trying to solve the problem by placing what is almost a prohibition on education authorities in the East of Scotland from recruiting the teachers who would normally come to them.
Are the Government putting pressure on other local authorities to lower their intake of teachers in order to compel teachers to go to the West though they may not desire to do so? Surely it is a queer way to recruit teachers for the West by creating gaps in the East. Is this the policy?
Before the war, Glasgow Education Committee always paid a bonus—at least, until 1931—as a way of attracting teachers. Has any consideration been given to a change of policy in that respect? If Glasgow and the West of Scotland paid a bonus to attract teachers, would the Secretary of State be willing to reimburse such local authorities out of the General Grant?
I welcome the large programme of school building and school improvements. For many years it has been one of Scotland's terrible tragedies that children have had to go to school in

what have almost amounted to slum properties. They have not had the necessary facilities or sanitary arrangements, and I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State has given instructions for a considerable programme of rebuilding, repair and improvement, as well as new schools, to be embarked upon.
I am not clear about whether the cost of all that will be recovered from the rates, without assistance from the General Grant. In the old days, it would have come out of the general fund, but as that was happening in England as well, we would automatically have benefited. Will local authorities be compensated out of the General Fund for money which they spend on the large school building programme with which the Secretary of State has instructed them to proceed?
Several other questions which I had intended to raise have already been covered by my hon. Friends, and there will no doubt be others put to the right hon. Gentleman. Since I have no wish to give him too many headings with which to deal, I will close with that.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: This Order will provide that the aggregate of Scottish grants will increase in 1959–60 to £51 million and in 1960–61 to £54,405,000. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland say whether in his conversations with Scottish local authorities and local authority associations, considerable hostility was displayed to his proposed figures and, if so, why he remained adamant on the issue and refused to meet local authorities on the many other issues which they raised?
In case the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the source of my figures, I am about to quote from the Municipal Treasurers' Annual Review. In 1958, local authorities in Scotland had a gross expenditure on education of £70,316,000. In 1959, that figure increased to £75,704,000. It is expected that in 1960, if the general pattern is followed, expenditure will be about £80 million. Thus, in three years we have seen an increase in Scottish educational expenditure of about £10 million.
I want to relate that expenditure to the provisions of the Order and to do so adequately and properly I shall have to consider the last year of the specific grant


arrangement. In 1958, under that arrangement, total grants covering all services came to £47 million. In 1959–60, the total General Grant will be £51 million and in 1960–61, £54 million. While local authority expenditure on education alone has increased by no less than £10 million, the total General Grant will have increased in those three years by only less than £7 million. The General Grant will cover not only education, but services such as health and fire, which now come within the provisions of the grant. Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to relate those figures to the provisions of the Order?
About two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman set up a committee, under Professor Knox of St. Andrew's University, to consider local contributions to universities. That committee reported a few months ago and recommended that local authority contributions, which come from the education fund in Scotland to the universities, should be increased from £60,000 to £155,000 a year. Has provision been made for that proposed change?
During the last three years of the specific grant arrangement, the grants increased, peculiarly enough, by £4¾million a year. I observed that in the Order there is no indication of such an increase occurring with the general fund. Indeed, the grant will jump from £52 million in 1959–60 to £54 million in 1960–61. Had there been an increase of £4¾million, the grant would have been £57 million. I am positive that local authorities are getting a raw deal under the new arrangement and that anyone with any knowledge of local authorities will admit the inadequacy of these provisions.

6.30 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: It is evident from the course that the debate has 'taken that great dissatisfaction is felt, not only on this side of the House but by the only hon. Member from the other side who spoke, at this method of financing local government spending by the Government. I know that we cannot debate the principle of a General Grant Order now, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully aware of the difficulties created by this method of giving financial aid to local authorities.
My hon. Friends raised many important points. The tone of the debate was admirably set by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay). He has great experience of local government. He knows the difficulties facing local authorities, and he put many points to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had had with local authorities, and what attitude had been adopted by them. Page 2 of the House of Commons Paper No. 82 says:
Discussions have taken place with representatives of the appropriate local authority associations and agreement has been reached with them about the factors of which account should be taken and also about the amounts which it would be appropriate to include in respect of them.
That is very different from the information that I have. It appears from the Paper that agreement has been reached with the local authorities. What does the Secretary of State for Scotland mean by "agreement"? Some councils have criticised the amounts it is proposed to give them. That criticism is not in line with the specific statements made in the Paper.
I want to discuss the Order on two grounds. First, we are told that the amounts to be given are to cover any unforeseen increase. Did the Minister have no information about the proposed increase in teachers' salaries when the original Order was made? The Minister knows what must be done before arrangements for increasing teachers' salaries are finalised and those increases should have been allowed for in the original Order.
Secondly, it has been decided that the amount specified in the Paper is to be provided for extra local government expenditure in 1959–60 and 1960–61. Is that sum intended to cover all the expenditure foreseen by the Government? Very probing questions have been asked from this side of the House, because it is obvious that if local authorities do their duty there will be other aspects of local government which will call for increased expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs raised the question of education.


Teachers' salaries, and an improved supply of teachers, have also been mentioned.
Will improved teachers' salaries provide us with more teachers? Because of the time required for training, even the training of graduates, it seems unlikely that the increased demand for teachers will be met by 1961. One way in which we could be almost certain of increasing the number of teachers would be to accept the strong recommendation made by one of the Minister's own committees, that of giving those graduates who are willing to enter a training college a grant on the basis given by D.S.I.R. If that were done, it would be a great step forward in increasing the number of graduates, which is the category of teacher we badly need in Scotland. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland given that suggestion any consideration?
In about two weeks' time we shall begin the Committee stage of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. This Bill was welcomed in the House, and. I am glad to say, in Scotland. The Bill envisages great improvements in mental health treatment in Scotland. It places on local authorities many more duties than they have now. It will probably be on the Statute Book by the end of July. If that happens, what will local authorities do between July of this year and May, 1961. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland thought about the urgency of some of the provisions in that Bill?
From July of this year to May of next year there will be an opportunity for local authorities to exercise some of the powers given to them. I know that we could not set up the centres and provide the services laid down in Clause 7 of the Bill by May, 1961, but there are other provisions which would enable local authorities to do a good job of work if they had the money.
It appears that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not thought about that, although Section 2 (1, b) of the Act which deals with this, says that:
… any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services giving rise to the relevant expenditure …".
Surely the Secretary of State wants local authorities at least to begin to provide those services which, under the Mental Health Bill, they will be asked to provide. Surely he wants local authorities

to give more attractive grants to university students who will enter training colleges, if he is not going to do it himself.
When the Bill was being discussed we were told that it would give local authorities much greater freedom than they had ever had before. Judging by some of the speeches of my hon. Friends, and also from what I know about local authority rate increases, it seems to me that the Bill gives local authorities freedom to raise rates—a freedom which they do not want—while taking away from them the chance properly to plan the many services for which they are responsible.
One of the most important is education. I do not want to go over all the points about the bulge, and the need for better provision for technical education for the many more children whom we hope will stay on at school after this summer. Has the Secretary of State taken account of these matters? In the light of the Secretary of State's report concerning the agreement with local authorities, I am prompted to ask him whether any of the points that I have raised were discussed in the talks with local authority associations. The more I see of the working of these General Grant Orders the more I am convinced that if we want to give local authorities the chance to plan well ahead for their services in education, health and mental health, we ought to go back to the old system of specific grants.
Meantime, so long as we have a Tory Government we must make the best of this legislation. But I warn the Secretary of State that each time this kind of Order comes before the House there will be a debate on it, and some very probing questions will be put to him.

6.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am sure that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will realise that I far from take exception to her last remark. We always envisaged that these Orders would provide an opportunity for the House to consider what is happening. But I confess that this afternoon the normal interest of Scottish Members on both sides of the House has been expressed in a series of detailed questions, and that if I succeed in answering


every one of them I shall be very surprised. Nevertheless, I shall deal with as many as I can.
Many hon. Members have commented upon the fact that this is not the occasion for a debate upon the principle of the General Grant. I am not as ingenious as some of them were in succeeding in debating the principle after having made that observation, but on that subject I will merely say that some time ago, when I was talking to somebody about what was happening under the General Grant system, when we all had some anxieties about how it was going to work, this wise person said, "There was an awful row in 1929. There has been great anxiety every time a change has been made in the form, structure, or method of financing local authorities, but it has always settled down, and in time people have seen the changes as real advances." It is understandable that people should have some concern about the question, and we cannot be quite certain how it will work out in all aspects of local government, but that is the way things are when we try to make progress.
As for the discussions which took place with local authorities, all I can say is that the advice I have received is to the effect that they went very smoothly. The main discussions were between the officials of my Department and officials representing local authority associations, and at the end of those discussions one local authority association expressed considerable satisfaction with the agreement reached in connection with the additional general grant over the two years.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman now says that the information he has is that at least one local authority association agreed. That is quite different from what is stated in his Report.

Mr. Maclay: I did not say that only one agreed. They all agreed, according to my information. I was merely indicating that I happen to have in front of me information relating to the association which took the trouble to express its actual satisfaction about the way in which the matter had been proceeded with. It was the County Councils' Association. I have no reason to believe

that any other local authority association was disgruntled at the result.

Mr. Gourlay: The right hon. Gentleman said that discussions took place between his officials and the officials of local authority associations. Is it not a fact that the elected members of local authorities have not yet had an opportunity of discussing these proposals, and are, therefore, faced with a fait accompli.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that local authority associations are so organised, by committees and delegated responsibility, that that kind of situation is fully met. The position is that we have the official agreement of local authorities to this order.
I now turn to Section 2 (2) of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act. Many questions have been based this afternoon upon the view that we are working under Section 2 (1), but we are not; the relevant provisions are contained in subsection (2). Some hon. Members asked why paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) were not dealt with. This is a Section 2 (2) operation, and that subsection states
If it appears to the Secretary of State that during any grant period any unforeseen increase …
We are not dealing with the normal fixing of grants under subsection (1), but with the exceptional conditions that arise under subsection (2). That answers many questions, but I shall see if I can deal with some others in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), in a well-informed and interesting speech, raised the question of education services. The answer is that in making our original determinations for the first two years certain progress was visualised in advance and the first General Grant Order, made in 1958 and fixing the grant for 1959–60 and 1960–61, took account of the likely trends in expenditure, including educational trends. I seem to remember that at that time a good deal of favourable comment was made about our having envisaged these trends. The relevant expenditure in 1959–60 was £80,234,000 and in 1960–61 it was £83,285,000.
I found it difficult to follow the detailed figures given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but I suspect that he was adding in some


capital figures as well as current expenditure figures. Before I could understand what he was talking about it would mean my sitting with him, with a cold towel round my head at least.

Mr. McInnes: I clearly stated that I was dealing with the gross revenue expenditure, as revealed in the Municipal Treasurers' Annual Review.

Mr. Maclay: I still should need a cold towel. Any hon. Member who has tried to deal with this subject will realise that in such circumstances a cold towel is a good thing to have about the house. I hope that what I have said answers that question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs.
The hon. Member also asked a question about the increase in the Bank Rate. I have some detailed figures which I shall have to discuss with the hon. Gentleman, because it is impossible to explain now that 1 per cent. is not necessarily the appropriate rate, even though it arises. That is not one of the points dealt with in this Order, which I should have thought, was obvious.
Questions have been asked about the housing programme, but housing is not subject to General Grant and I cannot with propriety, and because of the degree of preparation which I have accorded to this debate, go into the whole detail of a housing debate. One of the fascinating things about the discussion on this Order is the interpretation put upon it, at least by some hon. Members. They seem to think that we are entitled to have a debate on everything which is happening in Scotland. But I am advised that that would not be relevant. I am trying to keep within the rules of order and I have not the slightest intention of being drawn into such a discussion. This Order has a limited purpose. It is to deal with unforeseen increases in expenditure resulting from specific pay awards.
A number of hon. Members asked about the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill and the new services arising under it. The expected increase in local government expenditure on mental health will be taken into account in fixing the General Grant for 1961–62 and later years. Obviously, we cannot anticipate legislation, but that is one matter which can come under consideration as relevant expenditure. I cannot forecast exactly

what will happen, but it will be considered.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) produced a stream of questions. The hon. Gentleman's passion for information is admirable, but I cannot always meet it in its full glory. He asked about nurses—

Mr. Manuel: Not nurses.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, the hon. Member asked about nurses and I am jolly well going to answer him about nurses. He talked about nurses and allied staff.

Mr. Manuel: Yes, allied staff.

Mr. Maclay: The point is that "nurses and allied staff" is a technical term for one grade which I understand comes under the Whitley procedure. I think that the hon. Member will realise that it has nothing to do with the hospital service, it is a local authority matter.

Mr. Manuel: But nursery nurses—

Mr. Maclay: The point is that these nurses come under the local authorities.
One or two hon. Members asked about roads—

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is making it appear that I have very little knowledge of the nursing staffs being covered by the National Health Service. I was referring to nursery nurses and not to nurses as such.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Member. I thought that he was straying from one type of service to another, but now it is quite clear to me.
Road expenditure attracts specific grants and I do not think that we can consider that in the context of this Order. The point is that this Order takes account of specific payments which were not expected when the first settlement was made and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2 (2) come into operation. There has been no similar change in respect of full-time firemen—

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I cannot give way. If I give way so often I shall never be able to deal with the other questions.

Mr. Manuel: But this is important. I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. There have been representations made to many hon. Members on this question. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that over the next two years he will not have to face the question of pay awards for firemen in Scotland? If he does, he is completely out of touch with the situation.

Mr. Maclay: It would be quite wrong for me to comment on that on this occasion, because it is irrelevant. I cannot foresee what will happen and, therefore, I cannot put these matters into this Order. We are dealing with pay awards which have been made in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) referred to the problems of Caithness. The distribution of the General Grant between counties was carefully worked out by a working party which included local authority representatives. It was recognised that there would be gainers and losers and the transitional arrangements were introduced to help the losers. It is clear from the House of Commons Paper that those gains and losses were to be calculated with reference to a year about which full information was available, and 1957–58 was the year specified by the Act.
The gains and losses are the difference between the sums which individual authorities received in that year by way of Government grant and what they would have received under the General Grant and other changes in the Act if they had applied in that year. I am sorry that if any statements made either by myself or my colleagues have been misunderstood on the point. All such statements were made on the assumption that they referred to gains and losses as defined by the Bill.
It has been suggested that the distribution formula is unfair to certain counties, including Caithness. The distribution formula cannot be changed without legislation and it should not be condemned on the experience of one year. We are bound to review the transitional arrangements when changes in the 1961 revaluation become apparent, and to review the equalisation grant arrangements before 1963. It would be possible to examine the distribution formula in the light of that review.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) opened his speech in a surprising way, but he soon fetched up more or less in his usual form. He started by saying that he positively welcomed this

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Maclay: It was very unexpected, but the hon. Member started by being positively enthusiastic. He then went on to complain of a very curious thing. He complained that we were actually implementing the provisions of the Act. Some other hon. Members expressed surprise about that, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock complained about it. When we drafted the legislation we foresaw that at any given moment there would be things happening which would increase expenditure, salary awards, and so on, which were not foresee-able. Therefore, we included this Section and now we are implementing it.
We are fulfilling the promises we made at the time when the legislation was going through the House which I think is to our credit and I do not consider that anyone can complain about that. I am glad that some hon. Members appreciated that all the horrible warnings given when the legislation was going through have proved to be wrong.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked detailed questions about education. I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into the question of efforts to attract teachers and similar matters. The right hon. Gentleman asked a hypothetical question. He asked whether, if there was a special bonus payment for Glasgow, it would be included. It is an unforeseeable possibility and I should not like now to forecast what precise extra charges or costs could come under the provisions of Section 2 (2). It will be seen from the Order now before the House that we are rather broad in our interpretation, and that we have gone rather wide in what we are trying to do to implement the whole spirit of Section 2 (2).

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned whether these provisions are retrospective to give cover to the beginning of these payments, or whether, in the interval, the local authorities will have to bear the cost until the Order goes through.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry that I missed that point, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they are retrospective. In fact, in some cases they go back to before the original general grant in tidying up some of the things which were not foreseeable, and this is made retrospective. I am quite sure that I am right about this, but if I should be wrong, I will write to hon. Members. It may be that I have put it in a rather sweeping way, but I am certain that we are making it retrospective, so that there will not be the gap about which hon. Members have been anxious.
I have answered quite a number of questions, and I hope that the House will now agree to the Order.

Mr. Ross: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about local government officers.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has interrupted me again, when I was just finishing and was asking the House to accept the Order. I have forgotten what it was that the hon. Gentleman asked me, but perhaps he will speak to me, write to me, or ask his question again. I now commend the Order to the House.

Mr. Gourlay: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Minister has sat down, and that he is not sitting down in the sense of permitting an intervention.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1960, dated 28th January, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — OFFICES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[SIR GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provisions for health, welfare and safety in offices, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under Section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under Section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of Section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948.—[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (BARLINNIE PRISON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

7.5 p.m.

Mr. William Reid: . I rise to call the attention of this House to the state of affairs at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow. This prison is situated in my constituency of Provan. Since the beginning of the year, I have received a large number of complaints—(1) allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners; (2) the treatment of a prisoner, one of my constituents, who wished to write to me; (3) the concern of my constituents living in the vicinity of this prison about risks from escapes.
Since the beginning of the year, the happenings at this prison, as reported in the Press, have been astounding—hooch parties, riots, sabotage, assaults, smuggling of whisky, smuggling of cigarettes, and even a plot to murder the governor. This state of affairs is a blot on the fair name of our city and a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland to take immediate steps to deal with the unsatisfactory state of affairs existing at this prison. The Secretary of State has gone elaborately into these allegations, and I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating him on issuing such an honest and straightforward reply. That reply confirms all the allegations which I have made, although we may differ as to the deductions to be drawn from these facts.
The most serious complaint of all is the one sent to me by a prisoner who is one of my constituents. He made a complaint to me in writing and handed it over to the governor to send on to me as his Parliamentary representative, but that letter never reached me. It was suppressed by the governor. Not only that, but the man was punished for writing it by being put into solitary confinement for six days. These facts have been admitted by the Secretary of State. When I read these admissions, I could scarcely believe the evidence of my eyes. Did anyone in this House ever believe that such a state of affairs—dictatorship in its vilest form—could exist in the greatest democracy the world has ever known? Every citizen in this country

has a constitutional right to complain to his Member of Parliament regarding legitimate grievances, but the Governor of Barlinnie says, "Not if I can stop it."
It is alleged that the prisoner, when in solitary confinement, broke all his cell windows. Is it surprising that such a prisoner, being so brutally treated, should go berserk? No one in this House has a greater respect for law and authority than I, but I take the view that prison should be a place for reformation as well as for punishment. Good government should see to it that prisoners are treated with kindness as well as firmness so that when they leave prison they do so determined to go straight and become honest members of society.
One thousand prisoners were confined in their cells for six days in succession. The official reply to this allegation is, "Nothing unusual has taken place". These facts demand an immediate public inquiry into the management and control of this public institution. This prison has outlived its usefulness. It was built eighty-two years ago. When it was built it was out in the country. Now it is surrounded by housing schemes. The inhabitants of those houses are seriously concerned about the happenings there and the possibility of escapes.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should agree to the early demolition of this prison. It is now too old to modernise and bring up-to-date. The ground would be eagerly snapped up by Glasgow Corporation on which to build houses in an area where there is a clamant need for them. A new prison could then be built in some country district far removed from this great city's teeming population. I seriously and strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to a public inquiry to dispel the fears and anxieties of a great mass of our city's population.
There is one other constitutional point that I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a breach of Privilege for a governor of one of Her Majesty's prisons to retain, suppress and confiscate a letter handed over to him by a convict to send to his own Member of Parliament? Should this matter not be reported immediately to the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. Speaker: The concluding words of the hon. Member appear to be


addressed to me. I do not think it would be right to take up the time of the House about it now because, if a matter of Parliamentary Privilege were to arise on the matter he raises, he will appreciate that he is speaking of something which happened some time ago—this alleged suppression of a letter. Therefore, from my point of view the matter would not have been raised at the first possible opportunity.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I understand that the procedure is that a prisoner is entitled to ask for a form so that he can write a letter. I understand that he cannot send that letter to the Secretary of State or to anyone outside without it being censored by the governor. If that is the case, is there not sufficient control over the letters without the governor having the power to prevent that letter coming beyond the Secretary of State to the Member of Parliament?
I think that this point was raised some years ago by Mr. McGovern, who used to be a Member of this House and who had some problems about Peterhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. W. Reid) is raising a much bigger question about this prison tonight.
I went to Polmont when I was P.P.S. to Mr. Tom Johnston, to look at what was happening there, where people were to be reformed. At that time there was a great deal of violence taking place among the prisoners. I was of the opinion, having some knowledge of the subject, that shutting up these virile young men in cells at five o'clock at night automatically raised resentment and left them for long evenings to do nothing but nurse grievances.
I suggested at that time that their energy ought to be used in something else, that their cells ought to be opened and physical recreation and other education provided, and that they should be treated as human beings so that when they came out they would at least have been acclimatised to behaving properly. When they were under control they could be educated to proper behaviour, because many of them were like children.
These reforms were carried out and I am very glad that they have been extended. I was also anxious, when I

had the responsibilities which the Secretary of State now has, to try to get some of these reforms introduced into the prisons themselves. I am very glad that some of the governors were anticipating this by allowing people to engage in normal work. In Perth Prison, at that time, many prisoners were allowed to go out and work in the open country, under guidance, on parole. To a large extent that was successful. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has inaugurated an open prison in Kirkcudbrightshire. I understand that that has been quite successful so far as it has gone.
I believe that the time is coming when much more of this must be done. If people are shut up in cages they develop all sorts of grievances against society and against the warders. Bad blood develops and the kind of violence which my hon. Friend has explained often results. Sometimes a prisoner and a warder become positive enemies, just because they get on each other's nerves. A great deal of the violence my hon. Friend has mentioned arises simply because of this solitary confinement and because of the conditions inside prisons of that kind. One of these days the Secretary of State ought to make a policy statement about the general development of prisons.
There is nothing like fresh air for getting rid of bad blood. I agree with what my hon. Friend said. It would be much better if we got prisoners away to one of the islands off the West Coast that are used for sporting purposes. There they could engage in open air work and do something to restore the land to its proper use. It would be a civilising medium for many of these prisoners. Many of them have been brought up in slums and have had no experience of the countryside and fresh air.
Many years ago my German professor used to tell me how the Germans had been working on this problem. I was anxious to see if we could adopt something of the same kind. They built a house for the prisoners, who reclaimed land from peat. After they had reclaimed the land the house which the prisoners had built became a farmhouse and the land became a farm. The prisoners moved on to reclaim more land. We have a great deal of land of that type in Scotland and methods of reclaiming it have been found. If the prisoners could be out doing a useful job such as this.


instead of being shut in prison, many of the episodes and incidents to which my hon. Friend referred might be avoided.
In addition, there ought to be some selection of prisoners. Obviously, they are not all criminals. People who are sent to prison for some offences are never likely to be violent. They will accept their punishment. That is the type of man who is being moved to an open prison. There ought to be more accommodation of that kind, and many of these out-of-date institutions ought to be closed. It would be a great step if this institution were taken at least some distance out of Glasgow. The only difficulty is that my hon. Friend might find that the relatives who want to visit their sons and husbands in prison would find it inconvenient to travel to the Western Isles, but whether that would not be an additional reason for taking the prisoners to the Western Isles is a matter for consideration.
Our prisons are not in a good condition. We have seen many escapes, both in England and in Scotland. The warders' conditions have a little to do with this, and there may be a shortage of warders. Has the Minister sufficient warders? Is he getting the right type of people to be warders? Is he giving them the necessary remuneration to compensate them for being themselves virtually prisoners? When a warder is in prison he is almost as much a prisoner as the criminal himself.
Conditions ought to be such that these people can live in a certain amount of good will, because if enmity develops then danger results and anything may spark off a tragedy in prison which everyone would regret. I hope that the Secretary of State will go beyond explaining the details of the Barlinnie incidents and will tell us whether he has any positive reforms to propose, or whether he is considering any positive reforms, to bring about a better state of affairs.

7.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I understand very well the very proper concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. W. Reid) about what has been happening in Barlinnie, and I appreciate the way in which he put the matter before the House. I am, however, anxious to keep

this matter in its proper perspective, because it can get a little out of perspective if we do not try to explain in a little detail what happened, what led up to it and what is the position today. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I seek to cover a certain width of ground, which I think will meet some of the points made by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
I do not propose to devote much time to the incidents at Barlinnie in the New Year, because when I wrote to the hon. Member on 3rd February I set them out in considerable detail, and I understand that, with his agreement and mine, that letter received considerable publicity. What I had written to him became common knowledge.
Summarising what happened, there was a group of incidents over the New Year period which began with the insertion of shirt buttons into the locks on cell doors. As far as I can guess—and this has been said on a television programme by somebody who is in a position to know, although I do not know whether the hon. Member saw the programme—this was probably intended as a Hogmanay prank. It started like that. After prisoners whose cells were thus put out of use had been allocated to others, there were two disturbances, but the normal running of the prison was resumed on 4th January and eleven prisoners were awarded punishments, ten of them by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of the Visiting Committee. The other one was dealt with by the Governor.
Between 25th and 27th January there were further disturbances and demonstrations; and communal dining, working and recreation were suspended for the majority of prisoners on 28th January. Normal routine was restored again by 4th February. Hon. Members will realise that the suspension of communal activities may well be necessary for the good running of the prison when there is unrest among prisoners. It is obvious that the inhabitants of Barlinnie are by their nature not the most law-abiding of our citizens in Scotland.
Three prisoners were punished, all by the visiting committee, in connection with these incidents. Another man, who has been transferred to Aberdeen Prison


on route to Peterhead, has appeared before the visiting committee there and has been awarded punishment.
The point which I wish to make is that although there have been disturbances, only a very small minority of the prison's population of 1,100 were involved and only fifteen prisoners were put on a disciplinary charge. Step have, of course, been taken to make some of the things which were done, such as interfering with the lights, more difficult in future. As I have stated, certain prisoners have been awarded punishments by the disciplinary subcommittee of the visiting committee.

Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Member speaks of punishments being "awarded". It is rather strange that prisoners should be "awarded" punishment. Surely punishment is inflicted?

Mr. Maclay: I should not like to argue a point of wording. "Awarding" punishment is a phrase which I have known all my life, certainly since it was awarded to me good and hard. I think it is a normal phrase.
Certain prisoners have been awarded punishments—I think "inflicted" has a different meaning—by the disciplinary sub-committee of the visiting committee. Perhaps I should make it clear that the full committee consists of thirty-eight members appointed by twenty-nine local authorities with, in addition, two ladies appointed by myself. I will repeat that because it is very important to realise what the visiting committee is. There are thirty-eight members appointed by twenty-nine different local authorities plus, at the moment, the two ladies I have mentioned. The hon. Member for Provan has served on this Committee in the past, I think, and certainly the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who is not in his place, has served on it.
The full committee is meeting later this month to consider reports by the sub-committee, and I have asked it to report to me on the general situation in the prison as disclosed by these incidents. I shall be very glad to tell the House the Committee's conclusions if the hon. Member will put down a Question in a week or two. Perhaps I can discuss that with him. It might

also help if I reminded the House of the statutory rules.

Mr. Woodburn: It might be difficult to obtain evidence from people who are still in prison. Would it not be a good idea to find out from some people who have been there, ex-consumers, so to speak, what they think about the prison and whether there are things which ought to be put right?

Mr. Maclay: I think that it is better for me to await what I shall learn from the visiting committee before making any comment or giving any indication of what I might do afterwards.
It might help the House if I reminded hon. Members of the statutory rules, approved by Parliament, under which the visiting committee works. I am doing this deliberately because I feel that the visiting committee's part in these matters, probably inadvertently, has been denigrated in recent weeks. It is a very important body drawn from a very wide selection of local authorities and from men of the highest integrity. They are doing a difficult job only because they know that it must be done. They are completely dispassionate in their approach to the problem.
The Prison (Scotland) Rules, 1952, provide that the governor may, with the Secretary of State's approval, report serious offences against prison discipline to the visiting committee, and that the visiting commitee may, if it wishes, delegate the duty of hearing them to a sub-committee. The Barlinnie visiting committee has a disciplinary sub-committee by which the cases arising this year have been heard. The governor may be present to explain the charge against the prisoner or, as sometimes happens, to give information about his record, which may well be in the prisoner's favour and need not necessarily be the other way. The governor attends, however, only by the permission of the committee, and the committee can ask him to withdraw at any time.
I have dealt with this point, although it was not raised by the hon. Member, because there has been some discussion whether the governor should be present on these occasions. I repeat that the governor attends only by permission of the committee and that the committee can ask him to withdraw at any time.


This applies equally if the committee is hearing a prisoner's complaint against a member of the staff. The Rules provide that the visiting committee
shall have free access … to all prisoners and may see any such prisoners as they desire, either in their cells or in a room out of sight and hearing of prison officers".
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a matter which is causing considerable concern, namely, the arrangements governing the writing of letters by prisoners to Members of Parliament. The prison Standing Orders on this subject provide as follows:
Complaints about prison treatment in letters to Members of Parliament will not be allowed unless the prisoner has already exercised his right of making his complaint through the appointed channels, that is, by seeing a member of the Visiting Committee, or petitioning that Committee, and/or petitioning the Secretary of State. So long as a petition about prison treatment is outstanding he will not be allowed to write about the same matter in a letter to a Member of Parliament.
The principle behind this Standing Order was adopted over ten years ago and was explained to the House by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 29th July, 1949. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I quote his words, because what he said is very relevant.

Mr. Ede: It is on the record.

Mr. Maclay: I wondered if the right hon. Gentleman could bear to hear it again.

Mr. Ede: It was phrased in the way it was partly to protect Members of Parliament as well as prisoners.

Mr. Maclay: In explaining the arrangements which are now followed the right hon. Member said:
… if a prisoner is to be allowed to use a letter to a Member of Parliament for the purpose of making complaints about his treatment, which he would not be allowed to make in an ordinary letter, and which he has never made to the prison authorities"—
that is the important point—
the result would be that a prisoner could by-pass the appointed channels for the investigation of such complaints, and could make with impunity the most malicious and unfounded allegations against particular officers. This seems to be most undesirable and likely eventually to undermine the authority of the Visiting Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1949; Vol. 467. c. 182.]

The question of prisoners' letters to hon. Members has subsequently been raised in the House, I think on four occasions. To quote only one of these, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated on 21st November, 1957, that he saw no reason to depart from the judgment of the right hon. Member for South Shields in this matter. I have looked at it afresh in the light of what has been going on, and I confess that I still think that this is the right conclusion to reach.
I must admit that Barlinnie, like nearly all prisons, is at present overcrowded. The prison has accommodation for 969 male prisoners in single cells, but a few larger rooms of varying size can be used. About two years ago the number of admissions rose sharply and has since remained at a level much higher than for many years. The highest figure we reached was 1,215 a year ago today. At present the population is kept at a fairly constant level of about 1,100. We have got it down, but I do not deny that the prison is still overcrowded. Overcrowding has been alleviated to some extent by the reconditioning in 1959 of a hall at Perth Prison to which groups of prisoners who would normally be retained in Barlinnie are transferred as necessary. The position should be further improved once a hall of about 130 cells at Peterhead Prison, disused for many years, is reconditioned and brought into operation. That is hoped to be towards the end of this year.
Another way of relieving pressure is to keep offenders out of prison altogether. In this way the construction within the next few years of a remand centre for young people and a remand prison for persons awaiting trial or sentence should further ease the position. Plans for these establishments are now in preparation, and a site is under consideration. As I said in reply to a Question yesterday, the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders has been considering the questions of short terms of imprisonment and custodial sentences on young offenders, and its reports will be published as soon as possible. I assure the House that we think ahead the whole time on this problem.
The fact is that there was one of these periodic waves in crime which seem to


happen. We are all struggling desperately to discover why they happen and to ensure that they do not happen again. There are signs that at the moment we are at least on a plateau. The trend is not rising. We have steadied it. We hope that we shall begin to see signs of a fall, but it is very difficult to forecast.
Although the overcrowding at Barlinnie will be relieved in the ways I have described, I cannot contemplate closing the prison in the near future. I understand very well that householders near Barlinnie should feel some apprehensions about their large neighbour, but I am sure that so far there is no evidence that there is any real cause for alarm. As I said in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, at no time during last month's incidents was the security of the prison in danger, and, although there have been seven escapes from Barlinnie during the past three years, including the man who absconded last month and gave himself up the same day, there is no record during this period of any prisoner escaping from Barlinnie having attempted to break into any of the private houses in the neighbourhood.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the discipline exercised by the governor and his staff is too strict or too lax. He did not make that point. I am not clear whether he has any charges on discipline. This is one of the questions which doubtless the visiting committee will examine when it meets at Barlinnie later this month. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the task of maintaining good order in a penal establishment on the basis of humane treatment is very difficult and that prison governors and prison officers of all ranks deserve all the support that hon. Members can give them in doing their duty in accordance with the high standards expected of them. I am therefore very glad to be able to assure the House that the reports made by members of the visiting committee after each of twenty visits to Barlinnie last year are uniformly good, and that the last one dated 23rd December explicitly commends the
satisfactory manner in which discipline was maintained, and the efficiency and courtesy of the administration.
It is only right to put that on record.
I should not like to end without recalling the aims which guide the staff in its

treatment of prisoners. Rule 5 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules, 1952 says:
… the purposes of training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to establish in them the will to lead a good and useful life on discharge, and to fit them to do so".
The object is to inculcate habits of personal hygiene and steady application to work, and, by providing opportunity for prisoners to mix together for a large part of the day while at work, at meals and during leisure time, to instil a sense of self-discipline and responsibility towards their fellows. I hope that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire will feel that we have the same objectives in this respect as he had in his mind when he had my responsibilities.
Every endeavour is also made to clear up, while a man is in custody, any personal or domestic difficulties which may impede his training and prospects of rehabilitation. The senior staff on the discipline side, the chaplain or visiting clergyman, the medical officers and the welfare officer are all available for approach and assistance on matters of this kind.
I hope that the House will not feel that I am ranging too wide, but it seemed to me to be essential on this occasion to put the whole matter in perspective—not to shirk any of the incidents which have occurred, but to try to explain what we are doing. All this work is done by an adequate but not excessive number of staff, who depend not on rigorous supervision but mainly on moral influence. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if this was a problem of staffing. I am advised that it is not and that the prison is up to establishment. I have been able to visit several prisons during my term of office, and I have always been extremely impressed by the very fine quality of the prison officers I have met on these occasions. That has been universal whenever I have visited prisons.
As the prison staff work so much by way of moral influence and not of repression or with excessive numbers, it is not surprising that they have to face disturbances or New Year pranks of this kind. It is also not surprising if discharged prisoners sometimes take exaggerated reports of such doings out of the prison and give them to the Press. I think that we should keep our eyes not on these incidents, but on the wider objectives of


criminal justice. I know that it is not easy to do so, particularly for the daily Press which must be interested above all in news. At the same time, I acknowledge that on occasions the Press has been very helpful indeed. I give as an instance the articles published by the Scotsman last month on the open prison at Penninghame. They were a very useful contribution towards explaining what we are all trying to do.
It is at Penninghame that we see the last stage of "training for freedom" for selected prisoners. Frankly, this is the object of all prison administration; to train the offender so that he will use his freedom, when he regains it, for the good of society. It is one to which the Government intend to give continuing attention, both in the running of the prisons and other institutions and in examination of the causes of crime and the best ways of treating it.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Provan (Mr. Reid) has raised this subject, and I hope that he will feel that I have tried to deal frankly with the points he has raised.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Secretary of State for Scotland quoted from words I used in 1949 in defence of the policy which I, in conjunction with the then Secretary of State for Scotland, adopted when we had this similar trouble about letters from prisoners to Members of Parliament. There is no need for me to attempt to amend any of the statements I then made because, as I said when interrupting the right hon. Gentleman tonight, it is sometimes as necessary to protect Members of Parliament from undue correspondence on these matters as it is to watch the interests of the prisoner.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I gather that if any letter was suppressed in this case it was because it was written, as one might say, prematurely, that is to say, before the channels open inside the prison had been used to attempt to secure redress. It is important that that should always be clearly understood. It should be clearly understood that no offence is committed by the prisoner if, after having exhausted all those opportunities, he still feels that he has a genuine grievance.

No proceedings will be taken against the man who, having exhausted what one might call the internal facilities, desires to use his Member of Parliament to ensure that he shall not be unjustly treated, if the Secretary of State believes that there has been some failure in the action of the visiting committee.
That is making no criticism of visiting committees. They are exceedingly conscientious and public-spirited people who, in my experience, do a very great deal toward seeing that justice is done within the scope of the prison regulations. We all know that most of us desire law for other people but justice for ourselves—and sometimes we are very lucky when we escape getting what we wish for.
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in what he said about the future of prison life, and the opportunities for making it more suitable for enabling men who have been sentenced to prison to get out of their experiences a sense of personal responsibility for their lives. The most depressing thing in what the Secretary of State has said this evening is that he is bringing back into use some of the accommodation in Peterhead that has been out of use for a considerable number of years—

Mr. Maclay: I may say that it will be very much improved.

Mr. Ede: And it can do with it.
I am quite sure that all who have been actively associated with these responsibilities realise how much we are hampered by the fact that, in the main, we have to use buildings that were constructed when the whole attitude towards imprisonment was different from what it is today. I hoped very much that before I left office Dartmoor would be a thing of the past. I understand that there are now proposals by which it is hoped that the present Dartmoor Prison will be discontinued.
My right hon. Friend spoke of prisons being put in the country. There is much to be said for that, but staffing problems become much more acute once we get our prisons in the country. The prison officers, their wives and children are put in positions that very often make their social life very difficult to maintain. I


once visited Dartmoor Prison unexpectedly. I took good care that I got there before news of my being in the neighbourhood spread around. When I presented myself at the door of the prison and said who I was, the gentleman who looked at me through the wicket gate said, "Oh yes?"
I there had an interview with officials of the Prison Officers' Association. To be eight miles from a doctor and for one's children, if over 11 years of age, to have to go at least that distance to get a secondary education, is imposing on these people conditions that make men reluctant to go there, or to serve there for very long. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will be able to find some site other than Dartmoor for the security prison that will have to replace the present building.
I join with my right hon. Friend in expressing the hope that more employment may be provided from which the prisoner can get satisfaction; that the work shall not consist merely of routine jobs that are obviously made so that the person shall be doing something rather than doing nothing. When I visited Dartmoor I saw six men doing an obviously made-up job because I was there. I said, "If I were not here, those six men would be doing nothing. Let them go and do it as well as they would have done it had I not been here".
Perhaps the House will allow me to give an example of what can be done to give men the sort of job from which those who have had no great skilled training in any occupation outside of prison can get some satisfaction, and realise that there is some satisfaction to be got out of a useful job. Hon. Members will recollect that towards the end of the war there was an explosion in an underground arsenal that had been constructed near Burton-on-Trent. The explosion was very violent, there was considerable loss of life, and the whole surface of the earth round about was so disturbed as to be rendered quite useless for most ordinary purposes.
The then governor of Stafford Gaol thought that this would be a good opportunity for outside work for his prisoners, and sent a small party of, I think, fourteen men. They lived on an antiaircraft site in three huts that had been used by the Army. They were there for nearly two years. Of those men, thirteen

had been unskilled labourers, and the other man was a draughtsman—not a Parliamentary draftsman, but an architectural draughtsman. He drew a plan of the site as it was, another plan of the site as it was to be when the job was completed, with the terrain restored to its proper use, the roads reinstated, the houses rebuilt, the trees planted and all the rest. At the end of each week he brought the second plan up to date, so that the men could see how they were working towards the end that had been designed for the place.
The greatest difficulty of this experiment was that local people taking an interest in it would break the rules by presenting the prisoners with tobacco. There are occasions when Lord Nelson's principle of turning a blind eye has to be adopted in circumstances which one would not be able to defend in this House, but which one would be able to defend if one were before an even greater tribunal than this one. During the whole of that time, although the men could walk out of the site at any moment, only one man tried to escape and that was in the first fortnight before the experiment really started.
I wish that the Prison Commissioners were able to find similar opportunities in which work that produces results that men can see from the beginning towards the calculated end could be made more plentiful for these men. I am quite sure that it is that sort of thing which has the best reformative effect upon many people who, for one reason or another, have never had the opportunity of getting into that frame of mind when they are dealing with their own problems.
I understand that, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the whole question of penology and the surroundings of crime in this modern, affluent society, as we call it. I hope that they will be able to get from their colleagues the appropriate buildings in which to house people and get the appropriate staff. I am quite sure that there is nothing more likely to bring people into this service than the belief that, if they give their life to this work as a vocation, the surroundings in which they have to do their work will be brought up to date.
We have to face the fact that there has been no great building of prisons


during the last fifty years, that our ideas regarding the treatment to be given to people have changed and that the standard of education of the least educated people who get into prison is very much better than it was 100 years ago before, in the case of England, compulsory education had been adopted by the State.
If there is one part of our social services which needs an enlightened view to be taken of the service itself and of the buildings in which it is conducted, it is the Prison Service. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary every success in their efforts to enable that state of affairs to be brought about.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (ROAD PROGRAMME)

7.55 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It is rather fortunate that we finished the last Adjournment debate so early because, with Scottish Ministers present, it allows a number of hon. Members, including myself, to raise a matter about which, when we saw that the previous Adjournment debate was likely to end, we gave some notice to the Government Whip. We hope that the Minister will listen to what we have to say. We do not expect that he will be able to reply in detail because we appreciate that he has not had time to prepare a reply. At least, he may be able to give us some information about what is happening.
The subject which we want to raise is the present road programme in Scotland, the progress that is being made with it, and the effects of some of the more recent happenings in Scotland on that programme. We are proceeding with the building of the Forth Road Bridge and, as far as I know, the work on that bridge is up to schedule. The Government have decided to build after that the Tay Road Bridge. There is a fair amount of concern as to whether or no the Government will in fact have built an adequate approach road system to the Forth Road Bridge by the time it is completed. I have tried to follow the Government's plans and I am bound to say that I do not know the answer to that.
At present the Government do not seem to be pushing on very quickly with the making of the A.1 into an adequate

road. If we regard that as one of the main approaches we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. I remember when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say this, raised very often the question of the Dunbar by-pass. In connection with the A.1 trunk road coming from the north-east, which is the road most used during the winter, there is no doubt that that bypass is not good enough. That can be said of part of the road as it goes through Berwick.
When we come nearer to Edinburgh, the general proposition is that we should have a ring road around Mussel-burgh and Edinburgh. I was particularly disappointed yesterday to learn from the Joint Under-Secretary that this proposed ring road was at present only a line on a proposed development plan which had not even been approved by the Secretary of State. This is too bad. If I may say a word about part of my own constituency first, Musselburgh—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Austruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member mentioned his own constituency and he is, of course, quite in order, as he and the House know, in raising any subject on the Adjournment. He made the point that he had warned the Minister that he intended to raise this matter, but I think it right to point out to the House from the Chair that these unexpected subjects raised on the Adjournment without warning to other hon. Members may be a little unfair to hon. Members whose constituencies may be affected, but who have had no notice of the subject coming up for debate and, therefore, are unable to make a contribution. I put that point to the House because I think that it is my duty to do so.

Mr. Willis: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for saying that. I quite appreciate that there is a certain suddenness in this matter, and it might appear to be unfair. I certainly do not wish to be unfair to anyone. The opportunity has occurred tonight, and the subject I am raising is an important one about which many people are concerned. There has been much correspondence and many articles in the Press about it and it has been the subject of discussion within local authorities and between the various local authorities concerned. I


felt that the opportunity should be taken to say something about it. Once again, I say that I have no desire to be unfair. I have no doubt that others would have something to say in pressing the needs of their constituencies, although they might not, perhaps, say exactly what I have in mind.
To return to the subject of the ring road, the roundabout at Wallyford has now been completed. In passing, I must say that the very high wall which has been built around it does not meet with much approval. It obscures the view and makes driving round the roundabout rather hazardous, because one has no idea what other traffic is coming round. But that roundabout has been completed now, and we want the proposed by-pass for Musselburgh.
In Musselburgh itself, everyone is greatly concerned at the increasing volume of traffic along the high street. I understand that the Musselburgh Council has put this matter to the Secretary of State and urged the need to proceed with the by-pass. This is something which has been discussed for a great many years. I raised it myself, I think, as long as five or six years ago during private Members' time one Friday. The by-pass should be linked to a ring road around Edinburgh so that the traffic which might be expected as a result of the opening of the Forth Road Bridge does not all have to come through Edinburgh.
We already have serious traffic problems in Edinburgh. Indeed, they have led to a very peculiar thing happening in one of the most beautiful squares in the city, Charlotte Square. The main road has been lowered several feet below the pavements there because the corporation wanted to make sure that the heavy traffic which was to be expected around the square would not endanger the foundations of property on the north side. I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, but I am bound to say, judging by the results, that that seems to have been an act of vandalism in the square.
The traffic problems of Edinburgh are becoming worse every day as the volume of traffic coming into and passing through Edinburgh increases. We do not want added to this all the additional volume of traffic which may be expected to use the A.1 in order to reach the Forth

Road Bridge. We want a ring road around Edinburgh for that purpose. Also, we want a ring road to gather up the other roads which come into Edinburgh and to divert traffic making for the Forth Road Bridge. The A.68 which comes down from Dalkeith is another way across the Border from Newcastle. It does not quite come into my constituency, but it is on the borders of it. This road, again, comes into a crowded part of Edinburgh. All round Edinburgh one finds roads which come in at very awkward places.
The Government ought to be making plans to make the way clear for what is likely to happen. At Bathgate, West Lothian, there is to be a big industrial development, and this development is expected to lead to a great increase in the use of the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has already raised the question whether the present A.8 from Glasgow to Edinburgh should be a dual carriageway road. Alongside the A.8, on the verges, there is a considerable amount of land. I am not an engineer and I do not know about these things, but I imagine that, although a substantial sum might have been involved, it would not have cost so very much to have made the A.8 a dual carriageway road. Accidents happen upon it. Three-lane roads usually tend to be rather dangerous because of the manner in which people use the centre lane.
What is happening in central Scotland indicates that there will be a very great increase of traffic, particularly industrial traffic. Industrial traffic, of course, even more than private motoring traffic, demands better roads, because of its weight and size. The time has surely come for the Secretary of State to think seriously about the A.8.
There are other ways in which the present road programme for Scotland is not good enough. We debated this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee last year, in July, I think it was. It was pointed out then that we had in Scotland an expenditure equivalent to the Goschen proportion of the national expenditure, that is to say, about eleven-eightieths, or whatever it is. This is really not good enough. I do not know whether the position has changed since then. After all, the land area of Scotland is two-thirds the land area of


England and Wales, and some of the terrain is very difficult.
We are trying to bring about a great increase in tourist traffic. Mr. Hugh Fraser and his committee are considering all sorts of plans in an effort to open up some of the areas of Scotland for more tourists. The fundamental requirement of tourism, of course, is roads, the more so when branch railway lines are being closed in the north-east of Scotland, such as the line which took traffic to Dornoch and other places. The problem is one of roads.
I know that the Minister is doing something about certain of the roads, the road to Mallaig, for instance. What about the road to the Kyle of Lochalsh? Everyone knows that that is a disgraceful road. If we want to attract a large volume of traffic, we must do something about that.
Whenever I speak to people in London, I say to them, "You should go to the Highlands. There is no finer scenery in the whole country, indeed in Europe." There is no need for people to flock abroad. Some people take my advice, and after they come back, I say to them, "How did you enjoy your visit?", and they have nothing but praise for the Highlands, but they always end up by saying, "But, oh, my goodness, the roads. I would not go back there again, not because of what is there, but because of the roads". Surely it is time that the right hon. Gentleman tackled this problem. In north-west Scotland, there is some of the finest scenery in the world. Is it not time that we showed far more vision and tried to make the road system adequate?
In June and July, I suggested in the Scottish Grand Committee that what we needed was an extension of the A.9 right round the north coast of Scotland and down the west coast. I also suggested that some of the difficult crossings ought to be bridged. I should have thought that Ballachulish could have been bridged. What progress is being made with the road around Loch Carron in order to avoid the Strome Ferry?
With the best will in the world, I say that I do not think that we are getting anywhere near our proper share of the road programme. I am convinced that if the Glasgow—Edinburgh road were

situated in the Midlands or in the south of England, it would have been a dual carriageway years ago. No one in the south of England would tolerate such a road as the Glasgow—Edinburgh road for five minutes, and therefore we should not tolerate it. I often go to Norfolk at the weekends and motor round the rural byways, which take two lanes of traffic. When I was last in north-west Scotland I was astonished to find that single-track roads with passing places were still being made. These are main roads, not rural byways, along which we hope to invite thousands of tourists to travel. A much better and bigger road programme than we have at present is required to solve the needs of our industrial belt, of our cities, such as Edinburgh, and of the tourist trade which we are trying to build up in north Scotland.
I apologise for having raised this subject at such short notice, but in this House one has to take the opportunities which arise. I have done that, not in an endeavour to try to score off anybody or to gain any political advantage, but because I am convinced that the vast majority of people in Scotland, whether they are motorists or pedestrians, are concerned about the roads. If they are pedestrians, they are concerned because they cannot get across the streets in Musselburgh to do their shopping. If they are motorists, they are concerned about the narrowness of the roads and the loads which are being carried. The same applies in Edinburgh, and many other places in Scotland.
While my hon. Friends and I appreciate that the Joint Under-Secretary of State cannot answer all these points in detail, I hope that he will be able to tell us something about what is going on.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for raising this matter tonight. In a debate earlier this evening, I referred to the roads in the City of Edinburgh. Like most other cities, we are faced with tremendous expenditure on road renewal to carry modern traffic. This is imposing a tremendous burden on local taxpayers. I raised the matter because I thought that the Scottish Office, when considering these matters, might take into consideration the burden which


is falling on local taxpayers. After all, if the internal roads of the city cannot cope with modern traffic, tremendous congestion will be caused throughout the country; and that would be very costly for industry.
We all know that one of the most expensive items today is transport. The more we can facilitate the smooth flow of traffic, the better it will be for the country as a whole. Like some other cities in Scotland, we in Edinburgh have this problem, and I hope that the Scottish Office will pay attention to it. As my hon. Friend has said, a ring road round Edinburgh becomes more and more imperative. Not only the normal increase in traffic, but the development of the new Forth Road Bridge makes this matter extremely urgent. If traffic is to move, it is essential that this ring road should be provided.
I hark back to the question of industry. If we in Scotland are to attract the industries we want to attract we must have suitable roads. I should like to mention the road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, the A.8, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in a Question to the Scottish Office less than a fortnight ago. I am sure you will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the building of that road was promoted by the Government to alleviate the appalling unemployment which there then was in Scotland.
It was intended, in the first place, that that road should be a dual carriageway from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Despite the endeavours of the Government to create employment, because of the outcry about cost the Government cut it down to a single track road. I am told that the original intention was to have a dual carriageway, and that there is sufficient space along the road, with very few exceptions, for a dual carriageway to be built. I should have thought that, in view of the great development in traffic, since those appalling days of unemployment a case had been made out for a dual carriageway on the A.8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we expect considerable industrial development along that road. If the British Motor Corporation carries out its intended development

at Bathgate, which is only 14 miles from Edinburgh, it is essential that we should have a modern road.
I now wish to say a word in what might be regarded as a parochial sense. If the industry is to prosper, we in Leith should obviously expect to be carrying a considerable part of the traffic which will come on to the roads as a result of the British Motor Corporation development at Bathgate. With our shipping services between Leith and Scandinavia and Leith and the Continent, we are admirably suited to carry the traffic. We have a port and the facilities to carry the traffic. However, we need roads to meet the situation.
We raise this matter tonight in, I hope, a very constructive way. If we are to have development in Scotland, roads must be one of the top priorities. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to say something about the matters that we have raised, and certainly about the road connections between Edinburgh and the West, and the ring road round Edinburgh, and, if I may put this in third place, the cost of new roads to the local authorities, including the City of Edinburgh.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I am sorry that I have been unable to inform the Joint Under-Secretary of State about certain matters which I wish to raise concerning my constituency, because it was only a short time ago that I knew that this discussion would take place.
We are all very pleased that the Forth Road Bridge is in course of construction. Naturally, we shall be delighted if it can be completed by the scheduled date in 1963. I have previously asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that that would be so, and he gave me the assurance that, to the best of his knowledge, the bridge would be completed by that date.
The Forth Road Bridge will be of great advantage to the people of Kirkcaldy Burghs in gaining access to Edinburgh and the South. But we require an access to the North just as much, and that brings me to the subject of the Tay Road Bridge. I regard the Tay Road Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge as complementary, and I believe


that it would be in the interests of Scotland in general, as well as of Fife, Dundee and Angus in particular, if both projects could be completed at the same time.
Since the cost of the Tay Road Bridge is only about one-fifth of that of the Forth Road Bridge, one would assume that, if the Secretary of State's road programme were sufficiently wide, arrangements could be made to have the Tay Road Bridge completed at about the same time as the Forth Road Bridge. That would give great advantage to persons in Fife and the north of Scotland who will be using the Forth Road Bridge, and would inevitably ease the burden borne by industry on the North-East Coast and help to bring to that part of the country some of the light industry which is so badly needed to alleviate unemployment.
There is also the question of access from Fife and the rest of the east of Scotland to Glasgow. It is almost a nightmare for a motorist to undertake the journey on the road between Fife and Glasgow, for at any time of the day or night the motorist will find himself behind a heavy diesel lorry and be completely frustrated through lack of even a three-way carriageway, which would, in some cases, assist the motorist considerably. I am certain that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, if the same conditions obtained in England they would have been remedied many years ago. The road to which I refer is a most important thoroughfare between the east and west of Scotland.
Another aspect arises from the introduction of part of the car industry into the middle of Scotland. I understand that there will be the possibility of cars being exported from Burntisland as a result of a reciprocal agreement which may be made by a local industry in Burntisland. The ships which bring certain raw materials into the port will be so constructed that they can carry cars for export. Therefore, once the bridge is completed and the new car industry is in full swing, we shall require a considerable improvement to be carried out on the coast road between Inverkeithing and Burntisland.
I wish to draw attention to the apparent inadequacy of the roads programme in relation to my constituency. We had a central development in Kirkcaldy which necessitated the widening of Charlotte Street, which is causing a complete bottleneck in that part of the town. It was only as a result of very strong representations made to the former Minister of State when he was making a courtesy visit to the burgh, that we eventually obtained permission to go ahead with the development.
But that is only one of the many developments which are necessary in the burgh. I would draw to the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary the necessity for giving a grant for the construction of a viaduct over Valley Gardens, which is part of a new housing estate on the west side of the burgh. In some respects it is tied up with the Forth Road Bridge road system and the cross-town roads in Kirkcaldy. Also, tied up with the provision of the viaduct is the very important question of improving the sight lines and corners at Bennochy Road and Forth Park Gardens.
These may seem to be rather parochial points, but they are extremely important in relation to the road system of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy. I hope that the Secretary of State will do his utmost to ensure a tremendous improvement in the Scottish road programme in the future.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that my hon. Friends from the east of Scotland will not worry too much if a voice from the west is heard in the debate.

Mr. Willis: We welcome interventions by the west, because that will help to strengthen our case about the inadequacy of the present road programme.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in anything that I say about our needs in the west of Scotland. I also hope that I shall have the support of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), because he also represents a constituency which straddles one of the main roads in the west of Scotland leading from the Border through Dumfries to Glasgow.
I am concerned about the whole aspect of this problem. It worries me to hear people talking about the Goschen formula. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East spoke about it in relation to roads. I am a supporter of the Forth Road Bridge. I help those who raise their voices for Scotland about that project and, indeed, about the Tay Road Bridge. But these things should be treated as national projects and should not be taken into account when the ordinary road programme is being calculated. Without these two items the programme becomes fairly small and must concern everyone who has the wellbeing of Scotland at heart.
We are having our hopes revived about the coming of industry to Scotland, but many ancillary industries, which depend upon these larger industries that are coming, may decide whether or not to establish themselves in Scotland on the basis of how good our roads are. No one can look at Scottish roads today and be satisfied, both from the point of view of industry and of what is held out as one of the great hopes of the Highlands—tourism. We cannot have tourism without roads. We are to close railway branch lines. If we are to have roads do not let us make the mistake of having roads on which one car cannot pass another and, indeed, can hardly pass a bicycle.
Can one imagine English tourists on Highland roads discovering that they have to reverse for half a mile to a small passing spot? Yet I believe the Secretary of State is thinking of single-track roads in the North.

Mr. Willis: He is building them, let alone thinking of them.

Mr. Ross: That is quite wrong. I hope that we shall have more realistic plans for roads and more imaginative ones for the Highlands. No doubt we can build up tremendous tourist industry in Scotland, but much of it will never get past Stirling unless we wake up our ideas. It will have to stop at Dumfries, which will probably suit the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Unless he does something about the centre of Dumfries, tourists will probably have to stop there.
Attracting these smaller industries depends a great deal on roads, and the roads just are not there. It is terrifying to go into an ordinary Scottish town on

a Saturday morning, or on a Monday morning. We are in the middle of winter, but a motorist going into Kilmarnock or Ayr cannot find a parking place. What is will be like in July, I do not know. What is the Secretary of State doing about the by-passing of the burghs on main roads? Is he facing up to the problem of the Ayr-Kilmarnock road? Work is in progress on the bypass between Kilmarnock and Prestwick, but it is a long way from being finished. When will it be finished? Is the work up to the standard deadline?
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State realises what will happen when it is finished. It is only in the first stage, which is to carry extra traffic to by-pass Prestwick, taking it across country to Whitlets, and then it is in the heart of a new housing estate. It joins that road 100 yards from school No. 1, Whitlets School, and 200 or 300 yards down that road one comes to school No. 2, Braehead School; another 200 yards or so along is the racecourse. I do not know what will happen when the schools are not on holiday on race days. A few hundred yards further on there is yet another school, St. Margaret's. Over the railway bridge there is Wallacetown School and the road there leads to another school, Russell Street.
This is the road which is to carry the additional by-pass traffic until the bypass is complete. The traffic will go through one of the oldest streets in Ayr, George Street. What that will be like in the summer I do not know. We then arrive at the wrong side of the new bridge in the very heart of Ayr.
The alternative is that after passing the racecourse traffic would have to go along Somerset Park and down the side of the racecourse along Craigie Road, winding along a road to the station. That traffic will mean an extra road for a bridge which was never intended for this amount of traffic and which Ayr Town Council found last summer that it had to repair and which it will now have to rebuild, more or less, all because the Department did not build the bridges first, as should be done in any road programme. A new bridge is necessary to carry that extra traffic and yet, when the by-pass is complete, the bridge will be used by only half the traffic for which it will have to be designed.
I wonder whether, even now, the Secretary of State could not reconsider this second stage of the by-pass. I am not satisfied that it will save motorists time, or that it will be to the advantage of the town. The police will have many problems in dealing with traffic which will stream down to the North side of the new bridge. Parents of young children will have much cause for anxiety, because three of the schools I have mentioned are primary schools and one is a nursery school. This is far from an ideal position.
All this additional traffic will still have to cross Prestwick Airport. Do the Government have any thoughts for the future? Are they content that the second airport in Britain and an alternative for London Airport should have a main road, from Glasgow to Ayr, crossing a runway? Every time an aircraft lands or takes off the road has to be closed. The state of affairs last summer was fantastic. What it will be like in two or three months, with the by-pass still not ready, I cannot imagine.
I know that this is not entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but he must have overall supervision of the Scottish road programme. The position this summer will be serious and it would be as well if the Government thought about it now. In what little work they are doing on main roads I hope that the Government will not forget one point. If they have not appreciated it from their experience of traffic on Scottish roads last summer, they will appreciate it from experience in the coming summer.
In such conditions traffic is forced off main roads on to secondary roads, which are the administrative and financial responsibility of local authorities. The state of these roads today is worse than pre-war. The standard of maintenance and repair is below what it was pre-war because local authorities have no money available to pay for keeping them in good repair.
During our earlier debate on the General Grant Order we were chided by the Secretary of State for Scotland because we mentioned roads. He said that they were not covered. It would be unwise if I did not deal with roads in Scotland now. I hope that now that we

are discussing a subject which covers roads I can talk about them. We do not require legislation, which is one of the faults that we might have strayed into in this Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is no longer out of order to refer on the Adjournment to a matter which might require legislation.

Mr. Ross: That allows me considerable scope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I will spare the Joint Under-Secretary and not ask for new legislation. I would be giving him the answer to my questions if I put something that obviously required legislation. He would be able to say that there was no time for legislation. The legislation is there. What is required is additional finance for the local authorities who have been clamouring for help for a long time. Such assistance would enable them to keep our roads in Scotland up to the standard required by local authorities, and the standards which will be demanded by the traffic being syphoned on to these roads from the main roads.
Can the Joint Under-Secretary hold out any hope for the people of Scotland that, in addition to the road work that is going on, efforts will be made to tackle the bottlenecks in towns? People in Dumfries are fortunate in having a wide causeway beside the river, but once one leaves that and crosses to the other side one gets into a certain amount of trouble. It is not too bad in Dumfries, but, in Ayr, what was once a fine arterial road which went straight through the town is now becoming impossible for traffic and pedestrians, particularly on holidays and Saturday afternoons.
We were promised a by-pass, and one was planned before the war. I suppose that one day the Government will provide it, but when they do they will find the road flanked by housing developments all round the Western Road. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will assure us that congestion within our towns will be tackled, and that special financial inducements will be given to local authorities to tackle the problem.
There is one place which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) knows well. It is the road through Stevenston from Kilwinning. I do not know if the Joint Under-Secretary knows the place that I


am talking about, but the standard of driving must be very much higher than one would expect from the standard of sentences given by some of those who mete out punishment. There are relatively few accidents, despite the hazards that drivers face when going through Kilwinning. Two cars and a bicycle cannot pass one another on the main street. Getting through Stevenston without an accident speaks highly for a driver's standard of driving.
I would be glad to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary that at last the Government have persuaded the Treasury that in relation to the road programme in Scotland a question of eleven-eightieths will not be raised when dealing with major projects such as the Whiteinch Tunnel, the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge. Those projects are outside the scope of the Scottish Road programme and we should be treated on the basis of what we need in Scotland to ease the position. If the Joint Under-Secretary wishes us to exercise our influence and pressure in any way upon the Treasury or anybody else we shall be glad to help him.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I do not want to keep the House late on a night like this, but it is essential that I should place on record the fact that some of the points made by hon. Members opposite are not entirely correct. We have had a long catalogue of very parochial matters. Many towns and villages which are congested in varying degrees have been mentioned, and we have been failing to see the wood for the trees. Somebody ought to say exactly what the position in Scotland is in regard to main roads. Listening to hon. Members opposite, one would gather the impression that there are no main roads in Scotland. Much of what has been said would tend to frighten away industrialists and tourists, whereas they can expect something completely different in Scotland.
It may be that we were a little late in starting our road programme in Scotland, but that was not entirely the fault of the present Government. I motor a great deal in Scotland as well as in England, and my experience of Scottish roads is that generally they are better than the roads in England. Once a

motorist gets north of Carlisle he finds a tremendous improvement on the road to Glasgow. In a short time there will be a double-track road the whole way. Every time I go home I see the road from Glasgow to Stirling, which will also be a magnificent double-track road. A good deal of progress has been made on this road. There are some excellent roads in Scotland, and the Government are doing a great deal to improve others.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Nobody said that they were all bad.

Mr. Hendry: I believe that all the hon. Members who have spoken are from the south of Scotland. I do not know what experience they have of the roads northwards from Perth, but we have been told that there is nothing north of Perth. I would point out that from Perth to Aberdeen there is one of the best roads I have struck, considering the amount of traffic on it. I use it very frequently, and I would commend it to any hon. Member opposite who wants to see a really good road.
Beyond Aberdeen there is a first-class road, in my constituency, to the heart of the Highlands at Braemar. If hon. Members opposite wish to see good road work I recommend them to drive to the Devil's Elbow in the midst of winter and see how it is kept open. It is a miracle, and somebody should pay a tribute to the people who look after that road by sweeping it and keeping it open.
I merely wish to place on record the fact that industrialists and tourists who come to Scotland will find roads better even than those in England, and the House ought to commend the Government for the work they are doing in improving roads throughout Scotland.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I want to take this opportunity to elicit some information from the Minister. The Boulevard is a road running through Clydebank to Loch Lomond, and on the edge of this road there is a development known as Drumchapel, which is as big as Stirling, but there is only one way to it from the main road. This has been built up to a huge community, but the fact that there is only one way in and one way out means a great deal of frustration for people working at Singers on Clydebank. They can spend as much as


thirty-five minutes in a bus, getting home from work.
Although it has not reached a sufficiently practical stage for it to be put before Glasgow Corporation, a plan exists which can shorten the distance by 50 per cent, or even more.
What support have the Government given to such a proposition? Will the burden fall entirely on the local authorities or does it rank for grant? I think that this is more than a service road, but I should like to know. On these big schemes where there is only one road, workers become frustrated by the traffic delays which they experience.
A tremendous number of vehicles are registered in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, where it is difficult to find room to park a car within a mile of St. Enoch's Square. The cost of a Road Fund licence for a private car is £12 10s. and it is £20 or £30 for buses. It would seem that car owners in Scotland pay out a great deal of money, but little of that money is spent on the roads. It might be worth while estimating the amount of money collected in taxation and comparing it with what is spent on the roads. When the question of a tunnel at Prestwick was considered it seemed to be a case of either money or time, with emphasis on money and not time. I think that we might take a look at these matters.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has misunderstood some of the things which have been said during this debate. There was nothing parochial about the speeches which I have heard and I am certain that the part of the debate which I did not hear was of an equally high standard. But we welcome the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. We wish to encourage more Tories to support their Government openly in this Chamber. It is regrettable that the cut-and-thrust of debate is often absent from our discussions on Scottish affairs. It would seem either that the Government supporters have taken a vow of silence or that one has been imposed upon them. I hope that the example set by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will encourage other Government back benchers, and

that we shall hear more from hon. Members opposite than we have heard on many other occasions.
An important matter is the road problem which has been created at Prestwick Airport. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), Prestwick is not just some little airport, it is the second international airport in Great Britain. It is the point of arrival and departure for one out of every four passengers who cross the Atlantic by air. By means of Questions in the House and in Adjournment debates my hon. Friends and I have pressed the Government to face this problem. They have not been doing so, and are still not doing so. Even the Government were not aware of its magnitude, and it was only a year ago last June when, through a Question of mine in this House, it was decided to take a count of the number of vehicles which cross the main runway at Prestwick.
It was then discovered that on the average every day in the busy periods of the summer, 14,000 vehicles crossed that runway along the Glasgow-Ayr road. That is an enormous number, and every time an aircraft either lands or takes off, that procession has to stop. Indeed, on some Saturday afternoons, the procession, or rather the waiting queue of cars, extended from the verge of the runway almost into the town of Ayr.
The one easy solution to this problem was to put the road underground, which would have prevented that happening and would have kept traffic going, but the Government refused to spend the £800,000 necessary for that purpose. Despite the fact that an inquiry, over which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) presided, made a unanimous recommendation that, order to facilitate transport and provide proper road accommodation, that tunnel was absolutely necessary, they did not do it, but they proposed another scheme to make a road round the western end of the runway.
Then, it was discovered, when appeals were being heard against the proposed road, that it would invade the private promises of a distinguished Member of this House. [Interruption.] I did not want to mention any names, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) has said that it was a


former Deputy-Speaker of the House of Commons who is now adorning another place. So that solution has evidently quietly disappeared.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—

Mr. Rankin: No, I am not suggesting anything, because now I may be permitted to say that all the time I was in close consultation with that gentleman, who will appreciate what I am saying. He kept me in touch, and I do not think I am doing anything wrong in saying that when he is away from the House. I think the Joint Under-Secretary must have known that he did not look with favour on the proposals of the Government.

Sir F. Markham: I find this monstrous. By implication, there is here a hidden charge that a Deputy-Speaker of this House used his influence to divert a public road scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the inference, and I think this House ought to take umbrage at such an inference.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not take it that that inference was intended. I think that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House can make it clear to the House that he did not intend any such inference.

Mr. Rankin: We, of course, welcome the advent of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) to our debate. He is adding a little sparkle to the debate. Through no fault of his, he did not listen to the Adjournment debates in which I have spoken from this same spot in former Parliaments, nor to the Questions which, supported by others, I have asked on this matter. Consequently, he does not know the background, but I hope he will come more frequently to Scottish debates. Then he will be better informed.
What I am saying has been published in local newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I referred made no secret of the matter and I think he made representations to the Committee of Inquiry established by the Government to go into the whole case. So I am not revealing anything, but merely saying it in the House of Commons. I hope that

the House of Commons is a place in which one can speak freely and which will never refuse to listen to facts. All I am doing is giving facts without any bias and without emphasising them one way or the other.
That road was made and I said at the time that captains of the great aircraft, like Boeings 707, which shortly will be flying in there, would not land or take off if there was traffic passing round the west end of the airfield. No captain today would risk taking off while moving traffic was underneath him, even though it was mostly below the level of the airport itself. The Joint Under-Secretary answered me, and he knows when it was—towards the close of the last Parliament. He said we were to have a new road round the east end, which would take away much of the traffic which presently crosses the runway. The 14,000 cars, bicycles and pedestrians would have the chance to use the new road.
My last Question to him in the last Parliament was to inquire when the road would be ready. He said, very wisely, that it would be ready when the big jets were ready to come in. There is synchronisation. Delightful, is it not? We shall have the road waiting for the jets, not the jets waiting for the road.
I asked about what period it would be ready and he said, in June of this year. All right, we shall wait and see. Today, in a certain place, those of us who are interested in these questions have been discussing aviation matters: I have been involved for nearly nine hours. The Boeings were to start coming in on 1st April this year and the road, which was to relieve the traffic, was not to be ready until June of this year, but the Air Registration Board has imposed on the Boeings certain safety devices which the Americans did not think necessary and has said that they are to be delayed for about six weeks.
In any event, these machines, we hope, will be flying into Prestwick by the middle of May, but the road will not be ready at least until June. That flings the Answer of the hon. Gentleman out of the window altogether. I agree that there is not a very big gap, but the road will not be ready when the aircraft are ready to come in, which means that this summer we shall still be faced with this enormous amount of traffic seeking to go


south and south-west and being held up because of the airport. Congestion will be caused such as has annoyed travellers for the past few years on one of the most popular roads of Scotland. The Government do not seem to be doing anything about it so far. As a result of the road planning in that area, there was a period when the plans threatened to cut off the little village of Monkton altogether from normal access to Prestwick and the south. Under former plans that would have happened.
These are not parochial matters. They are very important matters which affect the movement of people who come to Scotland to spend money. Some of them bring dollars, and we do not scorn their dollars, nor do we scorn English £s. Yet when they come to Prestwick they will have to queue up outside Prestwick Airport, on either side, until the aircraft take off. I do not object to that because it is pleasant to sit and to watch aircraft movements. I hope that thousands of motorists will do that, and that, when they are fed up with sitting there, they will go into the airport and spend some money in the hotel. But if too many go into the hotel there will not be room for them, because it is too small, again because of bad Government planning. We should like to know what the Government are doing to provide hotels and other important amenities there.
I hope that the Minister will try to reconcile his earlier answers to me and will also seek to explain the road conditions at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. A. Woodburn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this Motion for some minutes. I had the honour to be in the Chair at that time.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but so far it seems to have been taken as an additional debate. I appreciate the situation, however.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is not a separate debate.

9.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): We have had a very pleasant and interesting debate, and I congratulate the hon.

Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on his intiative in opening it. It has enabled us to hear the points about which hon. Members are worrying, not only in their own constituencies but in Scotland generally. It has been a carpet slipper debate. Hon. Members have been at ease, and there has been a pleasant and agreeable atmosphere.

Mr. Rankin: Is that an invitation to behave differently on the next occasion?

Mr. Macpherson: No. I am glad that the debate has been conducted in this way. I hope that nothing takes place in what remains of the debate to disturb this agreeable atmosphere.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talked first about the general progress of the road programme and then dealt with the Forth Road Bridge. He asked whether the approach road system would be adequate by the time the bridge is completed. The bridge is due to be completed by the end of 1963. We believe that the building of the bridge is well up to schedule at present. The north and south approaches will be part of the scheme and in due course will be let as separate contracts in order that they may be phased in with the building of the bridge itself. They are regarded as part of the scheme, and inasmuch as the scheme is to be completed by the end of 1963, the approach roads will also be completed by then. At any rate, that is the plan.
Side by side with that, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who is not at the moment in his place, mentioned the Tay Bridge, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. The local authorities hope to be able to present the provisional order in respect of the Tay Bridge in 1961, just over a year from now. After the order has been enacted, the bridge has to be designed and built. It is physically impossible to expect that the bridge will be completed at the same time as the Forth Road Bridge.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East went on to mention the A.1, and in particular the ring road. He referred to the Question that he asked in the House yesterday. As I said rather hurriedly perhaps to him yesterday, procedures have to be gone through in this case. As he knows, after the plan is approved it will be necessary to make a trunk


road Order, which may or may not be objected to and may or may not be the subject of an inquiry. After that, the road has to be designed. Then in due course we shall have to obtain the authorisation for building the road.

Mr. Willis: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the project in this way?

Mr. Macpherson: It is at present in the development scheme. If the development scheme is approved, the probability is that we shall go on with these proceedings. I should not like to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes too high about the speed with which we shall do it. We are preparing our plans for the next period of the road programme, and it is by no means certain that it will be in that. We shall have to consider it. I shall not comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about A.68, because I have not looked into that question lately.
There has been a good deal of interest in ring roads. The first step is to ascertain the amount of what is known as by-passable traffic which comes up to one side and out at the other, and does not have to stop in Edinburgh. For that purpose it is hoped that an origin and destination survey will be carried out. However, it is for the corporation to do that and we hope that it will shortly propose to do so. If it does, it will have our full support.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Glasgow—Edinburgh road should be a dual carriageway throughout. Plans are being made just now for part of the western end to become a dual carriageway on the Baillieston to Newhouse section. That is the first scheme. It is already under preparation and will be authorised before 31st March this year.* The hon. Gentleman referred to anticipated developments in the Bathgate area. The traffic difficulties on A.8 arise mainly because of the number of minor roads coming into it, and not so much from the alignment or contours. This involves a great deal of planning. The fact that anticipated developments are on the horizon now means that we have to look at that section of the road all over again. The Scottish Home Department, the county council, the B.M.C. and others are discussing
* Note: Mr. Macpherson states that he should have said "31st March, 1962.

what should be done. This means that not only the trunk road, but classified roads as well will have to be substantially remodelled.

Mr. Woodburn: One of the dangers on the A.8 is this three-lane traffic. Most people using the road have come to the conclusion that it would be better to have, say, a white line down the middle. At present, if two vehicles are approaching each other and then try to pass on the middle way there is a head-on collision, and it is thought that a number of accidents have been caused in that way. If there were a bar down the middle of the road, an accident would be the responsibility of the driver who crossed that bar. When this new traffic starts, when motorists have to pass long lines of lorries carrying cars the danger will be greatly intensified, because people will get into the middle lane and will not be able to get back.

Mr. Macpherson: There is, of course, a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I was saying that, on the evidence, the fact that it is a three-lane carriageway only is not the main cause of accidents on this section. The main cause are the many junctions with minor roads, and that difficulty is not entirely overcome even with a dual carriageway. That is why close examination, and planning of alignment is required in deciding whether or not to make it, in effect, a road more of the character of a motorway, with flyovers and so on. All that is therefore being closely examined.
One thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was something that I once raised in a road debate, and I must say that I thought that after that it would never be raised again. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Goschen formula. This is a very difficult problem, and perhaps I may just say that in the present programme the proportionate expenditure in Scotland—admittedly, it includes the Forth Road Bridge and the Whiteinch Tunnel—is about one-sixth.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that that type of project should be regarded as a United Kingdom and not as a purely Scottish expenditure, but I must make the point that there are examples of the same kind of expenditure in England and Wales as well.


That would have to be taken into account when considering any adjustments. I do not overrate it. I quite agree that the Forth Bridge Road and the Whiteinch Tunnel represent a large proportion of expenditure at the present time, but once those projects are completed we hope to be able to turn our attention more to the Scottish trunk road structure

Mr. Woodburn: I have never heard of the Goschen formula guiding expenditure on roads. That formula was determined by the population of the country. Surely, road expenditure should be determined by the amount of roads there are. Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what length of roads we have in Scotland compared with England, and how the proportion compares with the one-sixth that he has mentioned?

Mr. Macpherson: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figure now, but I know that he will find it in the Report of the Royal Commission on Scotland. However, it was not I who mentioned this formula tonight. In fact, I have said that I would be very wary of ever raising it again—

Mr. Willis: What I said was that during our debates in July on the roads in Scotland it was pointed out that the proportion of the expense on roads in Scotland was in accordance with the Goschen formula. I then went on to say that that was quite ridiculous; that we really needed a lot more. I only said that that was what it turned out to be

Mr. Macpherson: I quite agree with the hon. Member. All I say is that in the present four-year programme the proportion is one-sixth, but as the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Goschen formula I felt entitled to comment on it. He then went on to deal with roads for tourism and mentioned some of the roads on the West Coast. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Secretary of State for Scotland attaches the greatest importance to the development of tourism in the Highlands, and we are doing quite a lot concerning the road, programme in the Highlands. For example, in the crofter counties programme the expenditure for 1959–60 is £750,000; for 1960–61, £1 million; for

1961–62, £1·5 million, and thereafter £2 million. That was announced in the White Paper on the Highlands and it represents a very great increase.
By the end of this year we are hoping that roads to the value of £850,000 will have been authorised in the Highlands. In addition, there are also the special roads that are to be built. The hon. Gentleman wonders whether they should be one-track or two-track. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to the Mallaig Road. This is now being made into a two-track road. It had just been started the last time I went over it and I hope that it has gone a long way since then.
I have mentioned all this to show that we are really doing something about the Highlands. It is very difficult ever to do as much as one would like to do, but at any rate we are actually taking steps to improve the position.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kyle Road. As he knows, there is a diversion between the Glen Garry and Glen Moriston. It is being done as a two-track road and is a combined effort by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke of the burden of road renewal in burghs and that was also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small). This again is a very old story because it is a very long time since a settlement was made under which the burghs would be responsible for their own roads. By and large that remains so. The responsibility for roads are pretty well defined and known in the country as a whole now.
I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Scotstoun about Drumchapel In certain cases it would be a question of the classification to give to a road. I would not like to give any particular answer to him on that question at the present time.
I will certainly look into all the points raised. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was good enough to say that he did not expect me to deal in detail with all the points that would be raised. The previous debate was on Barlinnie and this debate seems to be on bar nothing.

Mr. Hoy: Whatever we are barring we are not barring roads. The city will


be faced with a problem. I spoke about the A.8 and the approach to Edinburgh and to Leith docks. It may be that the corporation will be compelled to undertake major road expenditure. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about road development in that area and what assistance the Corporation might get if it were to undertake a major development there?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are improvements going on in the west of the area now which can serve as a by-pass or a sort of outer ring road in due course. I would not like to go into detail because I should like to give more exact information when I get the chance.
The debate has covered almost every area of Scotland. It began in the East, migrated to the West, and there was then a very welcome incursion from the North-East. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in paying a great tribute to the roads in the north-east of Scotland; they really are a treat to drive on. Also, we have had a little mention of the South and the North.
The House may be interested to know just how the road programme is proceeding. The amount of Government expenditure to be authorised in the period 1958–62 is £40 million. In the first two years, £27 million was authorised, and that included the Forth Road Bridge, £15,500,000, and the second Clyde tunnel, £3 million. The work in hand, or expected to be in hand at the end of next month, will amount to about £30 million. This includes local authority contributions also. This leaves about £13 million or £14 million worth of work to be authorised by 31st March, 1962. It is too soon yet to make any prophecies about what may happen after that. We are at present considering the programme, and there may, of course, be some revision of it even before that.
As the House knows, we have so far concentrated on two priorities, both of which happen to be classified road projects, namely, the Forth Road Bridge and the Clyde Tunnel. I am sure that no one objects to either of them. Now that they are fully committed and going ahead it will be possible to transfer more of the funds to trunk road improvements. Our proposals for 1960 and 1961

will soon be made known in the Estimates.
Work is proceeding on nearly every scheme which has been authorised. There are at present six schemes costing over £100,000 out to tender now. When these are let, there will be only one large authorised scheme still to go to tender. There are 20 miles of the Glasgow-Carlisle road now under construction and a contract for a further five miles is just about to be let. Apropos of that, I know that anyone who drives over that road at the present time encounters certain difficulties. One is always bound to encounter difficulties when roads are being improved. This, to some extent, is my answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on what he said about the Ayr bypass. During the time when roads are being improved, there is bound to be trouble, and it is too early to say what the effect will be when the improvements are made.

Mr. Ross: There is nothing there which should affect anyone at the moment. The roads are being constructed where there are no roads now. I do not really know what relevance the hon. Gentleman's comment has to the remarks I made.

Mr. Macpherson: I shall carefully study what the hon. Gentleman said. I was not entirely familiar with the particular point he was raising. I thought he was saying that once one improved section of the Ayr by-pass had been completed and the other had not there would be a good deal of local trouble there.
On the Carlisle Road, two more schemes, covering about six miles, are to be authorised in the next few months. This will mean that there will be about 30 miles under reconstruction, which is about as much as the traffic will stand, as anyone who uses those roads will agree. About eight miles of the Glasgow-Stirling road will be completed this year and then two sections will remain—the Cumbernauld-Castlecary section and the Denny bypass. Both are being prepared. We expect that if the two authorities, Dunbarton and Stirling, can prepare the plans in time, both will be put out to tender in the next financial year. Both have been held up by difficulties with the line of the road.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) raised one of his favourite subjects, the question of Prestwick. We have often heard him speak about this matter during the last fifteen years. It has been agreed with the county council that the runway crossing will be reviewed when the jets are operating and when the effect of the by-pass is seen. I know the hon. Member's point of view on this matter. He had made it clear and with great persistency in the House, but I do not think that it is worth while pursuing it further tonight.

Mr. Rankin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can say when the bypass to A.77 will be ready for use.

Mr. Macpherson: I would not like to say that without notice. I was invited to make a prophecy and I made it. That is always a rash thing to do. We can still hope that the prophecy will come true, but I am bound to say that I would

not like to make the same prophecy so much closer to the event tonight.
As I have said, I think that we have had a very useful debate. I should like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in it and have borne with me what necessarily had to be a rather scratch answer.

Mr. Woodburn: With the permission of the House, I should like to say how much my hon. Friends and I appreciate the courtesy which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has extended to the House in taking on this debate at very short notice and to thank him for the excellent way in which he has dealt conscientiously with every point which has been raised. He could not have dealt with the matter better if he had had a week to prepare his reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Ten o'clock.